Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
Editor: Phil Parette Associate Editor: David Dikter Illinois State University Assistive Technology Industry Association
Editorial Review Board
Tamara Ashton Jim Gardner Joel Mittler Debra Bauder Tom Hanley Cindy Okolo Margaret Bausch Ted Hasselbring Cynthia Overton Kirk Behnke Jeff Higginbotham George Peterson-Karlan Michael Behrmann Katya Hill Matthew Press Cathy Bodine Tara Jeffs Marcia Scherer Gayl Bowser Margaret Kardos Heidi Silver-Pacuilla John Castellani Joan Breslin Larson Sean Smith Dan Davies David Lazerson Kim Spence-Cochran Denise DeCoste Charles “Skip” MacArthur Toni VanLaarhoven Dave Edyburn David Malouf Michael Wehmeyer Karen Erickson Sue Mistreet Joy Zabala
Production Manager: Brian W. Wojcik
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is a collaborative publication of the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) and the Special Education Assistive Technology (SEAT) Center at Illinois State University. This publication is provided at no-cost to readers. It is a peer-reviewed, cross-disability, transdisciplinary journal that publishes articles related to the benefits and outcomes of assistive technology (AT) across the lifespan. The journal’s purposes are to (a) foster communication among vendors, AT Specialists, AT Consultants and other professionals that work in the field of AT, family members, and consumers with disabilities; (b) facilitate dialogue regarding effective AT practices; and (c) help practitioners, consumers, and family members advocate for effective AT practices.
Editing policies are based on the Publication Manual, the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Additional Information is provided on the inside back cover. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; also, any advertisement is the responsibility of the advertiser. Neither necessarily carries the endorsement of ATOB unless specifically approved by the ATIA.
© 2008, Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) and Special Education Assistive Technology (SEAT) Center.
ISSN 1938-7261
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / i Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assistive Technology Industry Association
Board of Directors
PRESIDENT, Jim Halliday Jason Curry Humanware sComm, Inc.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, David Dikter Richard Ellenson ATIA Blink Twice
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, Caroline Van Howe Martin McKay ATIA Texthelp Systems Inc
ATIA CONFERENCE CHAIR, Jen Thalhuber Michael Takamura AbleNet, Inc Hewlett Packard Company
ATIA BOARD SECRETARY, Dan Weirich Paul Thompson GW Micro, Inc Dolphin Computer Systems, Inc.
ATIA BOARD TREASURER, Takashi Yamashita Frances W. West Tieman U.S IBM
Jacquie Clark News-2-You, Inc.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / ii Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
Volume 5 Number 1 Fall, 2008
Table of Contents
Outcomes and Benefits in Assistive Technology Service Delivery 1 PHIL PARETTE DAVID DIKTER
Understanding Consumer Needs Through Market Research 4 CYNTHIA OVERTON CHERYL VOLKMAN HEIDI SILVER-PACUILLA TRACY GRAY
Assessing Calculators as Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities 19 EMILY C. BOUCK AMAN YADAV
Campus Community Partnerships with People Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing 29 JAMES MATTESON CHRISTINE K. KHA DIANE J. HU CHIH-CHIEH CHENG LAWRENCE SAUL GEORGIA ROBINS SADLER
Sight Word Recognition Among Young Children At-Risk: Picture –Supported vs. Word-Only 45 HEDDA MEADAN JULIA B. STONER HOWARD P. PARETTE
Technology (AT) Reutilization (Reuse): What We Know Today 59 JOY KNISKERN CAROLYN P. PHILLIPS THOMAS PATTERSON
Perspectives of Assistive Technology from Deaf Students at a Hearing University 72 MARIBETH N. LARTZ JULIA B. STONER LA-JUAN STOUT
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / iii Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assistive Technology and Emergent Literacy for Preschoolers: A Literature Review 92 KIMBERLY KRIS FLOYD LORA LEE SMITH CANTER TARA JEFFS SHARON A. JUDGE
Call for Papers and Manuscript Preparation Guidelines 103
© 2008, Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) and Special Education Assistive Technology (SEAT) Center.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / iv Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits Sponsors
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is made available through the generous contributions of the following sponsor:
Texthelp Systems, Inc.
"Literacy, Language, Learning"
Texthelp Systems Inc. is an assistive technology software company which produces a range of award-winning software solutions to help people with reading, writing, and literacy difficulties.
http://www.texthelp.com
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / v Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
Editorial Policy
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is a peer-reviewed, cross-disability, transdisciplinary journal that publishes articles related to the benefits and outcomes of assistive technology (AT) across the lifespan. The journal’s purposes are to (a) foster communication among vendors, AT Specialists, AT Consultants and other professionals that work in the field of AT, family members, and consumers with disabilities; (b) facilitate dialogue regarding effective AT practices; and (c) help practitioners, consumers, and family members advocate for effective AT practices.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits invites submission of manuscripts of original work for publication consideration. Only original papers that address outcomes and benefits related to AT devices and services will be accepted. These may include (a) findings of original scientific research, including group studies and single subject designs; (b) marketing research conducted relevant to specific devices having broad interest across disciplines and disabilities; (c) technical notes regarding AT product development findings; (d) qualitative studies, such as focus group and structured interview findings with consumers and their families regarding AT service delivery and associated outcomes and benefits; and (e) project/program descriptions in which AT outcomes and benefits have been documented.
ATOB will include a broad spectrum of papers on topics specifically dealing with AT outcomes and benefits issues, in (but NOT limited to) the following areas: Transitions Employment Outcomes Research Innovative Program Descriptions Government Policy Research and Development Low Incidence Populations
Submission Categories
Articles may be submitted under two categories—Voices from the Field and Voices from the Industry.
Voices from the Field
Articles submitted under this category should come from professionals who are involved in some aspect of AT service delivery with persons having disabilities, or from family members and/or consumers with disabilities.
Voices from the Industry
Articles submitted under this category should come from professionals involved in developing and marketing specific AT devices and services.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / vi Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Within each of these two categories, authors have a range of options for the type of manuscript submitted. Regardless of the type of article submitted, primary consideration will be given by the journal to work that has quantifiable results.
Types of articles that are appropriate include:
Applied/Clinical Research. This category includes original work presented with careful attention to experimental design, objective data analysis, and reference to the literature.
Case Studies. This category includes studies that involve only one or a few subjects or an informal protocol. Publication is justified if the results are potentially significant and have broad appeal to a cross-disciplinary audience.
Design. This category includes descriptions of conceptual or physical design of new AT models, techniques, or devices.
Marketing Research. This category includes industry-based research related to specific AT devices and/or services.
Project/Program Description. This category includes descriptions of grant projects, private foundation activities, institutes, and centers having specific goals and objectives related to AT outcomes and benefits.
In all categories, authors MUST include a section titled Outcomes and Benefits containing a discussion related to outcomes and benefits of the AT devices/services addressed in the article.
For specific manuscript preparation guidelines, contributors should refer to the Guidelines for Authors at http://atia.org/
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / vii Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Outcomes and Benefits in Assistive Technology Service Delivery
Phil Parette Editor
David Dikter Associate Editor
In this issue of ATOB, a collaborative report However, the investigators also note that by Cynthia Overton (National Center for calculators may not be a ‘valid assessment Technology Innovation; NCTI); Cheryl accommodation’ when using Elbaum’s (2007) Volkman (AbleNet®, Inc.); and Heidi Silver- definition of a valid accommodation, i.e., it Pacuilla and Tracy Gray (NCTI) is presented “should improve the performance of students that discusses how existing AT market with disabilities while having no effect on the research can be leveraged to create ‘new performance of students without disabilities” solutions’ to reach wider markets. The article, (p. 219). ‘Understanding Consumer Needs Through Market Research,’ is a seminal scholarly The third article, “Campus Community contribution to the field in that it offers Partnerships with People Who Are Deaf or suggestions to assist organizations with little Hard of Hearing,“ describes a qualitative or no experience in conducting effective study designed to (a) engage doctoral students market research—information that to date has and AT end users in discussions regarding been relatively obscure in the professional product development, (b) better understand literature. Of particular interest are how focus groups should be conducted with recommendations for primary market individuals who were deaf and hard-of- research strategies, and information regarding hearing, and (c) elicit feedback from end users accessible Consumer Guides to assist regarding three specific devices that had been administrators involved in technology conceptualized to benefit individuals who purchasing decisions, and educational were deaf and hard-of-hearing. Co-authored technology vendors. by Jamie Matteson, Christine K. Kha, Diane J. Hue, Chih-Chieh Cheng, Lawrence Saul, and In the second article, Emily C. Bouck and Georgia Robins Sadler (University of Aman Yadav (Purdue University) present California, San Diego), the article provides an findings of a research study, ‘Assessing insightful cross-discipline approach for Calculators as Assessment Accommodations working with persons who are deaf or hard of for Students with Disabilities.’ In light of both hearing using focus groups. the accountability mandate of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the In the fourth article, “Sight Word Recognition accommodations responsibilities of schools Among Young Children At-Risk: Picture- articulated in the Individuals with Disabilities Supported vs. Word-Only,” a report is Education Improvement Act of 2004, this presented of the impact of Boardmaker™ investigation provides support for the utility Picture Communication Symbols on the of calculators for 75 seventh-grade students development of word recognition skills with and without disabilities in open-ended, among 31 at risk preschool children. Co- problem-solving mathematics assessments. authored by Hedda Meadan, Julia B. Stoner,
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 1 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 and Howard P. Parette (Illinois State self-reported use of AT and overall benefits, University), the investigators found that (b) barriers to AT use, and (c) facilitators to previous research was supported regarding the AT use. An insightful discussion follows use of pictures paired with words in the which Discussion centers on the struggle to process of teaching word recognition, i.e., balance the triad of information that deaf children learned and read Dolch words faster students encounter in the university classroom when they are taught without picture and offers recommendations to assist deaf supports. However, in the fourth assessment students in ‘hearing’ classrooms at the of the study, it was found that the university level. intervention group of children performed better than the control group. The authors Finally, in the seventh article, “Assistive suggested that practicing sight words with a Technology and Emergent Literacy for picture and word might be best beneficial Preschoolers: A Literature Review,” a five- when testing occurs with a picture and word. year review is presented of research articles During interviews with the intervention group that ‘concurrently’ addressed AT, emergent children, all but one child reported that literacy, and early childhood. Co-authored by pictures helped learn the sight words Kimberly Kris Floyd (Old Dominion University); Lora Lee Smith Canter and Tara In the fifth article, “Technology (AT) Jeffs (East Carolina University); and Sharon Reutilization (Reuse): What We Know A. Judge (Old Dominion University), the Today,” Joy Kniskern, Carolyn P. Phillips, and review employed a literature synthesis strategy Thomas Patterson (Pass It On Center, previously reported by Edyburn (2002). The Georgia Department of Labor) describe both investigators reported only five peer reviewed the value and limitations of current AT reuse articles meeting the search criteria. Given the data and outcomes. The authors present a lack of attention devoted to AT applications summary of activities and data gathered from and their relationship to emergent literacy in several national surveys culminating in a the past decade, these findings are not national classification system of AT surprising, and the authors focus on both the reutilization. Interestingly, examples of both dearth of literature in this important area, as successful and damaging AT reutilization well as the need for targeted research to initiatives are described to facilitate decision increase the knowledge base of the early making by groups committed to developing childhood discipline. new or expanding existing AT reutilization initiatives. Limitations of existing research in We hope that these articles stimulate this area are presented along with professional dialogue in the field and recommendations for future research on AT contribute to heightened awareness of the reutilization activities. need for scientifically based practices. We also note that complementing this issue of the The sixth article, “Perspectives of Assistive journal is a wide array of presentations Technology from Deaf Students at a Hearing scheduled at the ATIA 2008 Conference on University,” Maribeth N. Lartz and Julia B. January 28-31, 2009, in Orlando (see Stoner (Illinois State University), and La-Juan http://www.atia.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pa Stout (Valdosta State University) report a geID=3280 for Conference information). qualitative study of the AT perspectives of This meeting has become one of the foremost nine Deaf students enrolled in a large ‘hearing’ AT consumer and professional venues and university. The investigators identified three presents a wide array of important program categories of AT perspectives including: (a) offerings to participants.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 2 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
We also express appreciation to our talented Editorial Board members who were called upon to assist in the review processes for manuscripts submitted in 2008. Without their input and support, this publication would not be possible.
References
Edyburn, D. L. (2000). 1999 in review. A synthesis of the synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education, 15(1), 7-18. Elbaum, B. (2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40, 218-229. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2001)
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 3 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Understanding Consumer Needs Through Market Research
Cynthia Overton National Center for Technology Innovation
Cheryl Volkman AbleNet, Inc.
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Tracy Gray National Center for Technology Innovation
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to important within the field of assistive demonstrate how existing market research in technology (AT), given that many consumers the assistive technology (AT) field can be have unique needs that may not necessarily be leveraged to create new solutions and to help addressed by mainstream products or even those solutions reach wider markets. To do those with a universal design. Collecting and so, we discuss market research projects, integrating independent and objective market focusing on seminal activities that have research as part of business practice is a recipe occurred in the assistive and learning for success. The purpose of this article is to technology field; present a collaborative show how existing market research can be market research activity involving the leveraged to create new solutions and to help National Center for Technology Innovation those solutions reach wider markets. To do and AbleNet®, Inc.; and offer suggestions for so, we discuss market research projects, how an organization with little or no focusing on seminal activities that have experience with market research can initiate occurred in the AT and learning technology such activities. As demonstrated in this article, field; present a market research activity that findings deriving from market research was a collaboration between the National activities can be used to benefit individual Center for Technology Innovation (NCTI) corporations responsible for conducting and AbleNet®, Inc. (hereafter referred to as market research as well as the broader AT AbleNet); and offer suggestions for how an community. organization with little or no experience with market research can initiate such activities. Key Words: Market research, Collaboration, Assistive technology An Overview of the Organizations
Introduction NCTI is a technical assistance center funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office Market research is a critical component of of Special Education Programs. The Center’s conducting business in today’s competitive mission is to advance learning opportunities environment. Information gathered from for individuals with disabilities by fostering market research informs organizations of technology innovation. One approach for consumers’ needs and expectations, which doing so is to enrich the field by generating will, in turn, guide how businesses develop knowledge through collaborative inquiry with and market their products. This is especially technology professionals. AbleNet is an AT
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 4 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
corporation that offers a broad spectrum of who could potentially benefit from the use of technology and curricular solutions to meet accessibility features. Findings from the study the learning needs of individuals who have showed that a need existed for more severe to moderate disabilities worldwide. In awareness and promotion of accessibility addition to the organization’s corporate features to enable users to overcome physical structure, AbleNet operates the Ablenet and cognitive challenges when using Research Consortium (ARC; AbleNet, n.d.), computers. which aims to increase the scientifically based research available on AbleNet curriculum, The results of this study had a wide reaching professional development, and AT. impact for Microsoft® as well as the AT industry. Steve Bauer, Director of NCTI and AbleNet have worked together on Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center a number of initiatives over the past several on Technology Transfer (T2RER), told years, including panel presentations and AbleNet: discussions about the increased pressure for scientifically based research in the AT and These studies will help Microsoft® to educational technology markets. The develop accessible operating systems collaboration described in this paper was and software applications for staffed and funded by both entities. computer users aging into retirement. Today’s workers are pervasive users of Market Research in the AT Field technology. However, as they age there is a normal diminishment of Grigoriou (2000) distinguishes between the sensory, physical and cognitive two types of market research and provides abilities. Products that individuals take insight that crosses industry boundaries to for granted before retirement may have widespread implications for almost any subsequently become unusable. emerging business. Primary research is described Innovative new hardware and as first-hand research to solve a particular software products will be needed. problem or seize a particular opportunity. Market studies help Microsoft better This form of research is conducted by the understand the needs and abilities of party that is in need of specific information. today’s elders, and the product Organizations and entrepreneurs not having preferences and usage of today’s the capacity to conduct their own research can workers. (personal communication, enlist the services of a third-party market April 15, 2008) research firm to do so (sample education market research firms are found in the The Microsoft® AT Vendor Program assists Resources section). Secondary research consists more than 100 AT manufacturers. The AT of information that has already been gathered products developed through this program by a third party, but nevertheless can provide help to make Microsoft® operating systems significant benefit to industry leaders when and applications accessible to individuals with made publicly available. One can turn to the and aging into disabilities. Microsoft® and AT Forrester Research (2003) study, for example, manufacturers in the Vendor Program each for secondary research to understand the derive obvious benefits from the needs of technology consumers who have collaboration. As part of the Vendor Program, special needs. Microsoft® commissioned this the Microsoft® Accessibility Developer Center external research organization to conduct a offers guidance, essential information, and study exploring the number of individuals tools for developing accessible applications
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 5 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
and software code. Likewise, other major understanding the needs of administrators corporations such as IBM®, Apple®, and stems from the organization’s desire to serve Intel® also have accessibility integration the entire district with solutions that could programs. best bring about improved student performance for those who have severe and Unfortunately, the dearth of publicly available profound to moderate disabilities. By better disability market data has historically led understanding administrative needs, AbleNet technology manufacturers to rely upon the will be positioned to create solutions that experience and intuition of their colleagues to solve these customers’ challenges. As AbleNet identify unmet needs and business began to focus on district-level consumers, it opportunities. To help bridge this gap, became clear that it needed to understand the T2RERC has undertaken a project to conduct needs of these people who were involved in primary and secondary research for five AT the decision-making process for acquiring AT industries. Information from this project is at all levels of the district. Prior to this, being compiled into ‘Industry Profiles’ that AbleNet focused on delivering solutions to are publicly available through the T2RERC teachers, therapists, and families, who are website (T2RERC, n.d.). To date, two such more often looking for individual and profiles have been completed: Industry Profile classroom solutions. on Education Technology: Learning Disabilities Technologies and Markets and Industry Profile on During this time, the No Child Left Behind Visual Impairment. Industry Profiles serve as Act of 2001 (NCLB) was dictating a new excellent sources of secondary research for focus on accountability. It was obvious to AT developers, providing overviews of the AbleNet that this focus on accountability respective populations, demographic would affect AT utilization, purchasing, background information, existing technology training, and so forth at all levels of special devices, and insight on legislation and education. Furthermore, it became evident funding. Useful primary market data is also that solutions that achieved and demonstrated contained within these documents--with results at all levels of the district would be sufficient specificity to help identify business critical to AbleNet’s future success. Therefore, opportunities but not to design products. It is AbleNet needed to capture and understand always important to recognize that secondary needs, desires, concerns, and motivation of research should complement, rather than district-level administrators nationwide. replace, targeted primary research. The remainder of this article describes a AbleNet took a market research approach to collaborative primary research activity understanding how the industry would shift. conducted by AbleNet and NCTI, along with The company decided to devote marketing suggestions for launching primary research time to listening to its customers. AbleNet activity. devised a semi-structured interview protocol with open-ended questions designed to elicit AbleNet/NCTI Collaboration administrators’ perspectives on the role of AT in school and district-wide technology The purpose of the AbleNet/NCTI market purchases and achievement goals. Senior research activity was to examine the changing management and sales representatives called roles and perspectives of district-wide on districts around the country to hold administrators as they relate to the purchase conversations with administrators in various and utilization of AT for their student levels and departments. Interviews were populations. AbleNet’s interest in documented in field notes and then shared in
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 6 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 corporate meetings. The vocabulary and key her top three to five greatest needs today? (c) concerns expressed in the interviews started Why are these identified needs of such great to shape a corporate strategic response to the importance? And (d) Have these needs shifted marketplace. over the past 3 to 5 years?
The learning was determined to be so Methods powerful that the leadership felt compelled to find a way to share it with their AT colleagues. Forty executive interviews were conducted AbleNet approached NCTI to ask whether between August, 2006, and November, 2007. researchers at the Center could independently A diverse pool of respondents was sought, analyze the data and collaborate on sharing representing various aspects of the body of the findings. NCTI was enthusiastic about the potential purchasers at a district level. potential of this rich data source to shed light Potential respondents were identified through on the changing needs of education the existing AbleNet customer-base as well as administrators, the impact those needs have cold-calling to districts that were not affiliated on special education, and the marketplace for with AbleNet. The interviews were AT companies. The Center agreed to analyze conducted with principals (5), superintendents interview data and turn research findings into (5), curriculum directors (5), special education practitioner-friendly presentations and directors (15), state-level AT leaders (3), and products to share widely with the researchers, program directors (7). The interviews took developers, and entrepreneurs in the field. place in person or on the phone and lasted 60–90 minutes. When possible, the interviews The AbleNet/NCTI collaboration were held in the respondents’ work demonstrates how market research that has environments. Respondents resided in been traditionally reserved to inform Arizona, California, Florida, Kansas, Maryland corporations of their customers’ expectations Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, and can be used to guide the field on the shifting Pennsylvania. Interviews were recorded needs of similar customer markets. through field notes taken by the AbleNet interviewers. Interviews were facilitated by Doing the Research AbleNet corporate executives, who have long been trained by third party market research AbleNet adopted an ‘executive interview’ companies on conducting effective market model for conducting the basic research, research strategies such as interviews, focus based on the Delphi interview method groups, and surveys. However, the project (Linstone & Turnoff, 1975). The Delphi was initiated as a way to gauge current interview method represents an in-depth practices employed by a sampling of iterative research effort involving one-on-one respondents representing education executive interviews with a representative administrators who make purchasing sample of experts or knowledgeable persons decisions involving AT. Given this less formal from selected target market businesses. In this approach, interviews were conducted with no case, AbleNet selected administrators from a mechanism to ascertain inter-interview variety of districts nationwide. reliability.
Four basic questions for the semi-structured Upon completion of interviews, field notes interviews included: (a) What are your top were forwarded to two NCTI researchers. three to five greatest needs today? (b) How do These notes were analyzed using Atlas.ti©, a you think your superior would define his or qualitative data analysis software application
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 7 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 Table 1 Qualitative Data Analysis Software
Qualitative Data Analysis Software A number of software applications to support qualitative data analysis are commercially available. These applications enable users to identify, code, and annotate findings; determine the importance of data; and draw relationships between data within and across sources. Examples of qualitative data software include are included below. Software Title URL © Atlas.ti http://www.atlasti.com/ © NVivo http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx © HyperResearch http://www.researchware.com/ (Atals.ti Scientific Software Development, Curriculum alignment. Administrators 2002-2008) (see Table 1 for more information demonstrated knowledge of aligning on this type of analytic software). Notes were curriculum to state standards and expressed a analyzed for key words and phrases that strong interest in drawing links between identified the most pressing issues relevant to curriculum materials and the standards on administrators. These key issues were then which students would be assessed. As interpreted by NCTI researchers in expressed by one superintendent, “Everything collaboration with AbleNet to determine how must align with standards. AT will not be used administrator data revealed challenges faced unless this alignment is clearly understood.” by vendors as they market their products to However, many of those interviewed were not these practitioners. In doing so, NCTI as familiar with the plethora of technology compared data to its own ongoing study of devices on the market that could support this trends in the field and dialogues with thought effort. Consequently, they were faced with leaders and stakeholders. The Moving Toward making decisions about new and innovative Solutions report (NCTI, 2005) derived from a technology that appeared appealing at the series of dialogue events in which NCTI surface level. Nevertheless, in many cases, the asked key thought leaders from education and relationship between the products’ role within technology fields, “What will it take for the curriculum and the connection to state assistive and learning technology to be standards was not made explicit by vendors. considered a critical component of education Without this critical piece of information, to help more students learn, achieve, and administrators expressed reluctance to invest reach their potential?” The report provides a in products without a clear understanding of framework within which to identify emerging how such devices would interface with the trends and key areas for advancing technology curriculum to help facilitate instruction as a solution in school improvement. aligned with state standards.
Findings Implementation. Administrators expressed great interest in drawing on technology as a Five themes emerged from the interview data resource to help improve student as key issues for administrators as they performance and enhance instruction. discussed technology purchasing decisions, Acquiring technologies with a universal design including: (a) curriculum alignment, was of particular interest to meet the needs of (b) implementation, (c) scientifically based a range of students. However, administrators research, (d) funding, and (e) legislative found that, after investing significant financial mandates. Each is explored in more detail resources in assistive and learning below. technologies that they believed would be
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 8 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 helpful, technology was not being utilized to response to intervention services, and the greatest extent possible. students on the autism spectrum, to name just a few. The Individuals with Disabilities This was largely due to teachers’ lack of Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA knowledge on how to implement technology 2004) dictates that AT be considered and, if in lessons to support teaching and learning. deemed necessary, provided for individuals Administrators found that many times, when the need is identified in an individual technology purchases were made without an education program (IEP). However, implementation plan or the support needed to administrators expressed concerns about ensure effective implementation in the financial factors associated with these devices. learning environment. One special education For example, one state AT administrator director reported, “The biggest reported, “[I’m] worried the perceived high disappointment is investment in AT that cost of products gets in the way of viewing never gets used.” [AT] as a tool to be used in differentiated learning.” Current funding realities encourage Scientifically based research. NCLB mandates that teams to identify technology solutions that are instructional materials and tools should be designed for use by multiple students supported by scientifically based research to whenever possible. Purchasers must make prove what works. Administrators made decisions for long-term value, so often a less- several comments reflecting the importance of expensive ‘one of a kind’ solution may not be this requirement. For example, one county cost effective in the long run. The complexity AT administrator stated, “[Technology] must of issues and needs has led to a complex be research-based for even classroom-level purchase process as a result. Consequently, purchases. Some companies have gotten to be the number of school and district personnel very good at presenting research first and then involved in the technology acquisition process introducing curriculum, software, or AT in has increased to ensure that classroom as well alignment with the research.” In response, as district needs are considered. administrators frequently ask vendors to provide documentation of evidence to Legislative mandates. Overall, findings from the demonstrate the efficacy of product data demonstrate that NCLB has been the utilization. Although administrators inquired single most influential factor in creating the about scientifically based research, many shift AbleNet identified initially: that more AT acknowledged that they did not know how to purchases are being made based on district- identify and evaluate whether the research was level technology considerations. For example, appropriate to support their decisions. This is one special education director stated, “[I] am because many parallel organizations have increasingly concerned with how the special different definitions of evidence-based education students are meeting general research, and criteria to evaluate objective education requirements.” Provisions found in results vary. the legislation, such as the requirement that purchases be supported by scientifically based Funding. Administrators reported that they research of effectiveness and the additional experienced challenges financing technology focus brought to the achievement of specific due to changes in Medicare support and student populations, have had a profound general budget cuts while meeting the ever- effect on administrators’ priorities and district expanding needs of their student population. purchasing policies. Administrators reported These expanding needs include English identifying and implementing instructional language learner students, students in need of practices and curriculum materials based on
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 9 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 scientific evidence, increased attention to marketing strategy. AbleNet specifically standardized testing to meet adequate yearly understood that administrators were going to progress, and changing education practices to be a bigger part of the purchasing decision satisfy the requirements of both NCLB and and knew that it did not understand the needs IDEIA. To address the needs of NCLB, of these administrators the way it had administrators have become more resourceful understood its core customer group. In an in how they utilize education materials. For effort to help AbleNet better understand the example, educational materials with a needs and motivations of these individuals, universal design have become more appealing plus factors that would influence purchasing because they meet a broad range of needs for decisions in their districts, AbleNet employed students with and without disabilities. This market research tactics. The results of the allows for cost-effective purchasing practices research produced key information that and helps align technology solutions with guided business practices that are used today. general education standards. Furthermore, in For example, one finding demonstrated that addition to relying on support from school NCLB mandated that educational materials be professionals, administrators have high supported by scientifically based research and expectations for technology solutions to mandated that they be aligned with state ensure the best educational opportunities for standards to help students meet their annual the students that they serve. yearly progress requirements. AbleNet concluded that purchasing decisions would be Outcomes and Benefits made on being able deliver these standards of excellence. Although AbleNet was delivering As stated previously, AbleNet conducted some level of these standards at the time of market research to (a) enhance service to the research, it felt it needed to move very district-level administrators in order to quickly to bring all of its solutions into support a broader segment of special alignment with district-level needs. Therefore, education than the company had in the past; AbleNet began to develop partnerships with (b) increase product offerings that meet the general education solution providers who needs of district administrators seeking already had scientifically based research and district-wide solutions while continuing to offered products aligned with state standards. support individuals on the educational team, AbleNet knew it could trust the talent of its and (c) determine whether the existing AT employees, who have many years of solutions that it offered met system-wide experience as educators in the field and years district-level needs. This section addresses of work with top researchers, to be able to how AbleNet’s market research initiative create and align other curriculum in addition informed each of these areas. to creating their own. The first effort to align current curriculum started with a partnership Broadening Marketing Efforts/Customer Base with Weekly Reader that allowed AbleNet to take the long-standing Weekly Reader For 15 years, AbleNet’s primary clientele curriculum and align/adapt it for students consisted of school-based educators and who have severe and profound to moderate parents who made purchasing decisions based disabilities. AbleNet provided additional on the individual needs of students. However, strength to the programs by integrating with the centralization of purchasing decisions proven teaching strategies and AT utilization and other changing market trends, AbleNet so all students could participate. It is also realized there were new challenges for special actively seeking its own scientifically based education that could affect the organization’s evidence to be able to track its success with student performance over time.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 10 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Increasing Product Offerings for District solutions for secondary and transition Administrators students. As discussed previously, market research also revealed that AbleNet needed For AbleNet to continue to be considered a additional scientifically based research to thought leader in the area of new products support its products. As a result, AbleNet was and solutions for the U.S. schools market, the able to adjust its product development and organization needed the research conducted district development plans. In doing so, it to guide research and development teams for developed the NEXT™ transition skills both AT products as well as content for system (AbleNet Inc., 2007) to support students with moderate to severe disabilities. secondary and transition students. NEXT™ The market research discussed in this article was launched in January 2008 and specifically helped both AbleNet’s research team and incorporated learning from the themes of sales team better understand the needs of the alignment and legislative mandates. This district and what questions to ask to transition skills system is a solution that determine the most critical of issues and to simplifies the process of identifying, teaching, ultimately work jointly to create solutions that and tracking essential transition skills over would best serve the needs districts across the multiple years, while meeting state standards country. The findings led to a search for new and federal guidelines for providing transition curricula and technology so that AbleNet education to students who have autism could create the type of solutions needed for spectrum disorders and mild, moderate, and these customers. Since conducting market severe disabilities. In addition to partnering research and applying the various findings to with other research-oriented organizations, the direct sales channel, AbleNet has found AbleNet (n.d.) initiated the ARC to meet strong receptivity to new solutions. consumers’ needs for products supported by scientifically based research. ARC offers a Determining Appropriateness of Existing Assistive stipend and free product/curriculum for Technology Solutions research efforts that are chosen by a team of internal and external reviewers based on a General feedback from school-based clients published set of criteria. In exchange for the suggested that AbleNet was providing many research support, AbleNet expects the of the right solutions for classroom-level research team to seek publication of the sales. However, the organization had limited results in a peer-reviewed journal. There is no details of how solutions met the needs of its corporate oversight over the publication of district-level clients. AbleNet executives findings. AbleNet’s goal is to learn from wanted to know whether the organization objective research so it can improve its supported districts appropriately, whether it solutions and utilize the results to help guide was targeting the right consumers, and more effective implementation of its solutions whether the solutions that it offered were seen with its customers worldwide. as top priority in the list of priorities that districts deal with. Findings from the market As a result of market research, AbleNet is in a research demonstrated that AbleNet was better position to meet the needs of district- missing certain pieces of the solution for level administrators by offering a more clients at the district level. The organization complete system of products that are learned that it needed ways to help districts research-based and aligned with state support accountability efforts as they standards. This has led to a notable increase in measured student performance. AbleNet also sales. In addition to informing AbleNet’s recognized that the organization had a gap in business practices, the research findings were
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 11 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Figure 1. Excerpt of sample questions posed by educational technology vendors to support marketing of assistive and learning technologies. Source: National Center for Technology Innovation, Center for Implementing Technology in Education, and AbleNet, Inc. (n.d.a). Consumer guide. Ed tech vendors. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.techmatrix.org/consumerGuides.aspx. Used with permission. used by NCTI as the foundation for creating improved communication and collaboration. products and presentations to spark further The Consumer Guide assures that the most discussion in the AT field. Two products are appropriate information is gathered and described below. utilized during the technology acquisition decision-making process for both the Consumer Guide. A Consumer Guide (NCTI, purchaser and the technology vendor. In Center for Implementing Technology in doing so, the Consumer Guide helps facilitate a Education, and Ablenet, Inc., n.d.a, b) is a dialogue that addresses key issues that were decision-support tool presented as a matrix of identified through this collaboration. The themes, advice, and questions to help facilitate guide is promoted through the following four appropriate and responsible technology Web sites: (a) hwww.NationalTechCenter.org, marketing and purchasing decisions. This (b) www.TechMatrix.org, (c) resource was created as a two-part document www.AbleNetInc.com, and (d) to speak to both school administrators and www.CITEd.org. Excerpts from the technology vendors. This design illustrates the Consumer Guide for School Administrators parallel and shared vocabularies of these two and Consumer Guide for Ed Tech Vendors target audiences and suggests bridges to are presented in Figures 1 and 2.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 12 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Figure 2. Excerpt of sample questions posed to school administrators to support the purchase of assistive and learning technologies. Source: National Center for Technology Innovation, Center for Implementing Technology in Education, and AbleNet, Inc. (n.d.b). Consumer guide. School Administrators. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.techmatrix.org/consumerGuides.aspx. Used with permission. Presentations. The AbleNet/NCTI Implications for the Field collaboration also has resulted in several presentations at conferences where it is used As described earlier, the AbleNet/NCTI to spark a dialogue among participants. collaboration provided AbleNet with useful Readers can experience one of these insight on their effective corporate practices presentations in an archived Webinar (see along with opportunities to better serve the Volkman & Overton, 2008). Sessions were needs of their existing and prospective clients. hosted by the Center for Implementing However, the implications from this Technology in Education (CITEd) and Don collaboration reach beyond AbleNet and into Johnston, Inc. In this session, the the broader professional field. For example, background questions, research methods, and the collaboration demonstrates how policy key findings were shared and discussed with and legislative mandates have the potential to online participants. shift who the customers/purchasers are and then also influence the priorities that drive Deepening the dialogue in the AT field about spending decisions. This suggests that it is current realities at the district level as well as prudent for the field to stay abreast of policy articulated concerns of administrators is and legislative shifts to predict and explore the critical for vendors and developers of changing needs of their consumers. technology tools to remain competitive and Furthermore, it implies that the industry relevant. The Consumer Guide and live would benefit from conducting studies to conference presentations can play a role in validate and monitor the shifts that are strengthening the utilization of technology as predicted. The project also shows that results a solution for all students. from a market research initiative can have
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 13 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
practical application, as reflected through the (e.g., Assistive Technology Industry Consumer Guides, Webinars, this article, and the Association) should be contacted to see development of NEXT™ transition skills whether they have market research available system. The first three are made available for for public consumption. widespread use among the field to inform professional practices, while the later Identify support for primary research. Financial demonstrates how market research leads to constraints serve as a leading barrier to product development. Finally, the technology innovation. Many novice AbleNet/NCTI partnership demonstrates developers have innovative ideas but little how industry leaders can collaborate with capital to engage in research and development other entities to inform their own professional steps that are critical for successful technology practices, as well as those of industry leaders innovation. Small Business Innovation throughout the field. Research (SBIR) Program grants, administered by the U.S. Small Business Market Research Options Administration, encourage commercialization to ensure that good ideas are brought to Conducting primary research has great market, based on good research processes that promise for helping to best understand the are required in the proof of concept phase needs and expectations of a manufacturer’s (Phase 1) of the grant. target audience. Many well-established AT companies are experienced in market Make use of low-cost Web tools. research, whereas younger companies may Manufacturers should consider low-cost just be starting the process. The following media tools such as blogs, consumer forums, section identifies options for those companies electronic surveys, and discussion boards to beginning the process of conducting market generate input from consumers in their target research and refining their business field. Web 2.0 features and capabilities are approaches as a result. giving consumers a voice in product development and marketing strategies. By Identify missing information. actively soliciting input through a company’s Understanding what the manufacturer knows own Web site as well as participating on and what is needed to be known about the public sites where consumers gather, allows target audience is an important first step in the manufacturer to reach new audiences and conducting market research. Neglecting this build awareness of the potential of their initial step could result in duplicating efforts products. Readers may examine more in The (that is, collecting information that already Power of Social Media to Promote Assistive and available) and overlooking information that is Learning Technologies (NCTI, 2008). vital to product development and marketing. Develop a method to collect and analyze Utilize secondary research. Manufacturers data. As discussed previously, Microsoft® should draw on secondary research to enlisted an external research firm to conduct a establish information in the field that has study exploring the number of individuals already been uncovered. For example, who could potentially benefit from the use of T2RERC has released exhaustive market AT. However, smaller organizations may lack research reports addressing needs among the financial resources needed to enlist this users who have visual impairments and type of support. In such instances, draw on learning disabilities. Colleagues at other references such as books, journal articles, organizations or professional organizations market research organizations, and technical
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 14 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 2 Education Market Research Resources
Education Market Research Resources Resource URL Description
America’s Digital Schools, http://ads2006.net/ads200 This study explores the future of educational 2006 6/ technology from the perspective of superintendents, curriculum directors, and technology directors. Key findings are available at no charge, and the full report may be ordered for a fee. Education Market http://www.ed- Education Market Research publishes market Research market.com research data collected from original studies conducted by the organization. Areas include textbooks, supplemental materials, computer hardware, software, video, and online. Education TURNKEY http://www.edturnkey.co TURNKEY conducts niche market research in K– m/ 12 educational technology, specializing in special education, state technology grants, E-rate discounts and refunds, and other areas. Grunwald Associates http://www.grunwald.com Grunwald Associates provides industry research on technology, children, families, and the education market. Harvard Case Studies http://www.hbsp.harvard. Provides cases on best practices in research or on edu/hbsp/case_studies.jsp interviews; the cases are usually fairly inexpensive to purchase and can help you build a case or use examples. Quirks http://www.quirks.com/ This Web site helps users identify “research on research,” best practices, and appropriate research methodologies. A free membership is offered, which includes a magazine and Webinars. Survey Sampling http://myssi.surveysampli This resource offers sampling solutions, best ng.com/08/02/USEN/ind practices, and trends.
ex.html assistance centers such as NCTI to develop an Limitations approach to collecting and analyzing primary data. A number of software applications to The partnership between AbleNet and NCTI support qualitative data analysis are demonstrates how market research can be commercially available. These applications leveraged to create new solutions that reach enable users to identify, code, and annotate broad markets. This initial collaborative effort findings; determine the importance of data; was aimed to identify, formalize, and and draw relationships between data within disseminate strategies to inform the field on and across sources (examples of qualitative leveraging market research. AbleNet and data software are found in the Resources NCTI accomplished this through their section). Once the manufacturer develops and collaboration; however, limitations existed implements a data collection and analysis plan, within the process and should be findings to support the business strategy may acknowledged and considered during future be utilized. endeavors. First, the initiative began as an information gathering process. No formal research design was established prior to the start of data collection, and NCTI entered
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 15 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 into this project with AbleNet after data were educational professionals and the students collected and ready for analysis. While that they serve. interviewers were trained by third party market research companies on conducting Conclusion effective market research interviews, interviews were conducted with no Market research has served as a valuable mechanism to ascertain inter-interview resource in understanding the needs, desires, reliability. Furthermore, this endeavor differed and concerns of consumers and purchasers from other traditional qualitative research within the AT field. Although this important approaches because during the data analysis business strategy has been utilized in the AT phase, NCTI researchers contacted AbleNet field, opportunity exists to improve the staff involved with conducting interviews for gathering and use of market research to clarification on the data (e.g., interpretation, enhance the products and services offered to context). Although findings from this project a changing and diverse set of customers highlighted AT over educational and worldwide. Drawing on secondary research instructional technologies for learning, (data that have been collected by a third party AbleNet’s original purpose for conducting the on consumers) is a good first step to getting a research was broad enough to consider better understanding of a manufacturer’s curriculum and professional services in the audience. Microsoft® and T2RERC have company’s special education category. The made market research reports available for findings shared in this paper should be seen as broad use that serve as excellent starting guideposts to further research and points. However, this approach should be collaborative efforts that inform the field in followed up with primary market research that an effort to better meet the needs of is customized to provide specific insight on a
Table 3 Demographic Information Resources
Demographic Information Resources Title URL Description Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the principal fact- finding agency for the federal government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics.
Child Trends and Child http://www.childtrendsdat This site offers up-to-date national trends and Trends Data Bank abank.org research on more than 100 key indicators of child and youth well-being. Disability Statistics: An http://www.disabilitystatis This site features disability statistics and related Online Resource for U.S. tics.org demographic information. Disability Statistics Twenty-Seventh Annual http://www.ed.gov/about Report provides annual progress made toward the Report to Congress on the /reports/annual/osep/200 provision of a free appropriate public education to Implementation of the 5/parts-b-c/index.html all children with disabilities and the provision of Individuals with early intervention services to infants and toddlers Disabilities Education Act with disabilities.
National Center for http://nces.ed.gov The National Center for Education Statistics Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 16 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
company’s client base. This article provided National Center for Technology Innovation. an example of one such market research (2005). Moving toward solutions: Assistive and activity involving a collaborative activity learning technologies for all students. between AbleNet and NCTI. Additional Washington, DC: American Institutes for resources on initial steps to conducting Research, National Center for Technology market research can be found in Tables 2 and Innovation. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from 3. http://www.nationaltechcenter.org/index. php/2007/03/04/moving-toward- References solutions-assistive-and-learning- technology-for-all-students/ AbleNet Inc. (2007). Next: Transition Skills National Center for Technology Innovation, Software (version 1.0) [Computer Center for Implementing Technology in software/hosting services]. Roseville, MN: Education, and Ablenet, Inc. (n.d.a). Computer Business Solutions. Consumer guide. Ed tech vendors. Retrieved AbleNet. (n.d.). AbleNet research consortium. September 17, 2008, from Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.techmatrix.org/consumergui http://www.ablenetinc.com/home/resear des.aspx. ch/ablenetresearchconsortium/tabid/109 National Center for Technology Innovation, /default.aspx Center for Implementing Technology in Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development. Education, and Ablenet, Inc. (n.d.b). (2002-2008). Atlas.ti (Version 5.5) Consumer guide. School administrators. [Computer software]. Berlin, Germany: Retrieved September 17, 2008, from Author. http://www.techmatrix.org/consumergui Forrester Research. (2003). The wide range of des.aspx.. abilities and its impact on No Child Left Behind Act, 115 Stat. 1425 computer technology. Cambridge, MA: (2002) Author. Retrieved May 29, 2008, from Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center http://download.microsoft.com/downloa on Technology Transfer. (n.d.). Industry- d/0/1/f/01f506eb-2d1e-42a6-bc7b- profile project: Facilitating A/T industry 1f33d25fd40f/ResearchReport.pdf innovation through focused market research. Grigoriou, N. (2000). The role of marketing in Retrieved May 29, 2008, from an organisation. Businessdate, 8, 4–7. http://t2rerc.buffalo.edu/research/indust Individuals with Disabilities Education ry-profile/index.htm Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Strobel, W., Arthanat, S., Fossa, J., Mistrett, (2004) S., & Brace, J. (2006). Industry profile on Linstone, H. A., & Turnoff, M., (Eds.). education technology: Learning disability (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and technology and markets. Buffalo, NY: applications. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Rehabilitation Engineering Research National Center for Technology Innovation. Center on Technology Transfer. Retrieved (2008). The power of social media to promote on May 29, 2008, from http://t2rerc. assistive and learning technologies. Washington, buffalo.edu/pubs/ip/index.htm DC: American Institutes for Research, Strobel, W., Fossa, J., Panchura, C., Beaver, National Center for Technology K., & Westbrook, J. (2003). Industry profile Innovation. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from on visual impairment. Buffalo, NY: http://www.nationaltechcenter.org/index. Rehabilitation Engineering Research php/2008/01/29/power-of-social-media- Center on Technology Transfer. Retrieved final/ on May 29, 2008, from http://t2rerc.buffalo.edu/pubs/ip/index.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 17 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
htm Volkman, C., & Overton, C., (2008) Technology decision-makers hold the keys to implementation [Webinar]. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.cited.org/ index.aspx?page_id=126.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 18 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assessing Calculators as Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
Emily C. Bouck Aman Yadav Purdue University
Abstract: This study explored the with disabilities on assessments is to provide performance of 75 seventh-grade students an accommodation or set of accommodations. with and without disabilities, educated in inclusive mathematics classes, on open-ended, Accommodations are a right of students with problem-solving mathematics assessments. In disabilities on assessments and in daily class the study, approximately half of the students activities (Individuals with Disabilities used a graphing calculator on the first Education Improvement Act of 2004 assessment and not on the second assessment [IDEIA]; Koening & Bachman, 2004). A valid (n = 35; 46.7%), whereas the other half used it accommodation does not alter the construct on the second assessment and not on the first of an assessment, but rather alters the (n = 40; 53.3%). The results indicate that all presentation, type of response, setting, timing, students did better when using a graphing or the provision of technology or other calculator, regardless of the order of calculator supports, according to a student’s individual use (i.e., Assessment 1 or 2). The results also needs (Fuchs et al., 2005; Ysseldyke, Thurlow, suggest that calculators may not be a valid McGrew, & Shriner, 1994). Accommodations accommodation for some students with help ‘level the playing field’ for students with disabilities on assessments. This study has a disability (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999). Examples implications for providing calculators as of common accommodations for students accommodations on mathematics with disabilities, particularly students with a assessments. high incidence disability, include: tests read aloud, allowing oral responses, calculators, Keywords: Mathematics, Calculators, High individual administrations, and extended time incidence disabilities (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 2003).
Accountability is at the forefront of education While accommodations for students with and so is its ‘sidekick’- assessment. Federal disabilities are varied and can be expansive, policy requires that all students be tested not every accommodation is a valid yearly in literacy and mathematics in grades 3 accommodation for assessments. Elbaum through 8 and once again between grades 10 (2007) defined a valid accommodation as one and 12 (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that results in the performance of students [NCLB]). Although all students are to be with disabilities increasing to a greater extent tested, students are not all the same. Students than the performance of students without with disabilities, for example, often struggle disabilities when provided with the same with content areas, such as mathematics, and accommodation on the same assessment. therefore perform worse on assessments Given the proliferation of assessing students (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Capizzi, 2005). One way to in the era of accountability, research exploring better measure the performance of students the validity of accommodations has increased. Yet, even with this increased attention, there
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 19 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 is still a dearth of research. Additional studies accommodation on the problem-solving are needed to understand the validity of assessments. Tindal, Heath, Hollenbeck, different accommodations, specifically on Almond, and Harniss (1998) found that mathematics assessments, and calculators are students with disabilities benefited when a a natural option given their frequent mathematics assessment was read aloud by a appearance as accommodations on individual teacher as opposed to students with education programs (IEPs; Maccini & disabilities themselves reading the test but this Gagnon, 2000; Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, was not the case for students without & Morse, 2005; Tindal & Ketterlin-Geller, disabilities, making oral presentation an 2004). appropriate accommodation.
Accommodations for Mathematics Assessments Finally, and similar to the other accommodations examined with respect to Researchers have studied the validity of mathematics assessments, inconsistent results particular accommodations relevant to have been found for calculators as an mathematics assessments, such as extended accommodation. Fuchs et al. (2000) examined time, oral presentation, and calculators. The the use of a calculator as an accommodation research on extended time has shown to be for fourth- and fifth-grade students with mixed and dependent on the type of learning disabilities on curriculum-based mathematics problems being assessed (Fuchs, measurements (CBMs). Their research Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, & Karns, 2000). involved 181 students without disabilities and Fuchs and colleagues found that extended 192 students with learning disabilities. time is not a valid accommodation on Students were given computation, concepts computation mathematics assessments or and applications, and problem-solving CBMs. those involving application problems, as The researchers found that students with students with disabilities did not benefit on learning disabilities benefited more than their Curriculum-Based Measurement assessments peers without disabilities when using a more than students without disabilities when calculator on problem-solving CBMs. provided with this accommodation (i.e., did However, the students with disabilities did not not improve scores more). However, the benefit more than students without disabilities researchers did find statistically significant on the concepts and application CBMs. benefits for extended time when students with (Note: Fuchs et al. study examined several and without disabilities took a problem- different types of accommodations and the solving assessment, favoring students with overarching study was to compare teacher- disabilities. (Note: This suggests that extended alone vs. data-support accommodation time is a valid accommodation for problem- decisions.) solving assessments.) Shaftel, Belton-Kocher, Glasnapp, and Poggio Researchers also have found mixed results for (2003) also studied the impact of calculators the oral presentation of mathematics as an accommodation for students with and assessments as an accommodation for without disabilities. Specifically, they studied students with disabilities. Similar to the 570 fourth graders with disabilities and 244 extended time accommodation, Fuchs et al. sixth graders without disabilities. Shaftel and (2000) found no benefit in the area of colleagues found the use of a calculator mathematics for students with disabilities on benefited students with disabilities but not application assessments, but did find students without disabilities and concluded statistically significant benefits for this that calculators were an appropriate
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 20 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 accommodation for students with disabilities. assessments. It focused on graphing However, the results were not conclusive as calculators and the order in which students the assessments used for students with were allowed access to a calculator (first disabilities in the study were presented in assessment or second assessment). In simpler English in addition to students being particular, it sought to answer the following provided a calculator. Furthermore, students question: Does the use of a graphing with and without disabilities were not tested at calculator result in performance differences the same grade levels. on standards-based, open-ended, problem- solving assessments for students with and Recent research has explored calculators–both without disabilities? four-function and graphing calculators–as an accommodation on open-ended problem- Method solving assessments. Bouck and Bouck (2008) studied four-function calculators as a Participants mathematics assessment accommodation. The research involved 89 sixth graders with and Seventy-five seventh-grade students without disabilities on open-ended, problem- participated in this study. All participants solving, number and operation, time-limited came from two schools in one large rural assessments. They found that the use of a district in a midwestern state. The district was standard four-function calculator resulted in selected because it had been using a problem- both students with and without disabilities centered mathematics curriculum which answering more questions correctly when they encouraged calculator use for over a decade. had access to the calculator on the assessment It also educated the majority of its students than when not. However, students with with a disability in inclusive mathematics disabilities did not benefit more than students classes. The two schools had a combined without disabilities when provided with this student population of 2,577 students, an accommodation. average rate of 93.1% Caucasian students, an average rate of 78% passing the state Similar results were found by Bouck (in press) mathematics assessment, and an average rate in examining graphing calculators as an of 88.3% passing the state reading assessment assessment accommodation by students with (School Matters, 2006). The district as a whole and without disabilities. This study analyzed had a 28% economically disadvantaged rate the performance of 47 seventh-grade students and 13.8% of its students identified with with and without disabilities, in inclusive disabilities (School Matters). mathematics classes, on an open-ended, problem-solving, number and operation, time- Four inclusive classes and two teachers (both limited mathematics assessment. While the general education mathematics teachers) data showed that on the problem-solving participated in this study. Fifty-three percent assessments, students with disabilities of the students had Teacher A (n = 40) and answered more problems correctly when 47% Teacher B (n = 35). The students were given access to a graphing calculator, these relatively evenly dispersed across the four gains were not statistically significant when classes. Of the 75 students who completed compared to students without disabilities. both assessments, 74.7% (n = 56) were students without disabilities and 25.3% (n = This specific research project sought to 19) were students with high incidence continue and extend the research on disabilities. The majority of the students with calculators as an accommodation on disabilities were diagnosed with a learning
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 21 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 disability (n = 13; 68.4%) (NOTE: The known mathematics education specialists in schools did not indicate the type of learning the state for clarity, appropriateness, and disability students had, such as a learning alignment to state standards. disability related to reading, writing, mathematics, and other subject areas); Procedure however, others included students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder The study involved two assessments taken (ADHD; n = 5; 26.3%) and students with about four weeks apart. Both assessments behavior disorders/emotional impairments were timed, in that students had one class (n = 2; 10.5%). Slightly more than half of all period to complete the assessment (50 the students were female (n = 40; 53.3%), yet minutes across all classes). About half of the only 31.6% (n = 6) of the students with students (n = 35; 46.7%) were assigned to disabilities were female. Condition 1, meaning that they had access to a graphing calculator on the first assessment Materials (Assessment 1) but not the second. The other students (n = 40; 53.3%) were assigned to All students in the study completed the same Condition 2, in which they had access to a two assessments in the same order graphing calculator on the second assessment (instruments available upon request from the (Assessment 2) and not on the first. The author) as well as used the same type of students were randomly assigned to a calculator (a TI-82 graphing calculator), which condition (i.e., order of calculator use) at the was the standard calculator for these students level of teacher, which means that students and all students were familiar with it and had themselves were not randomly assigned to use used it previously. The two assessments were a calculator or not, but a class was assigned to similar but not identical. Both assessments use a calculator or not on the assessment (see consisted of 28 open-response, problem- Figure 1 for graphical depiction of solving questions that focused on the number conditions). and operation strand from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) Data Analysis Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. The number and operation strand was chosen The mathematics assessment data were for both assessments because the majority of analyzed multiple ways. First, the data was the standards for sixth grade students in this analyzed using a 2 × 2 ANOVA (Ability midwestern state came from this strand. The status × Condition). The dependent variable state’s sixth-grade standards were chosen as was students’ raw change score from students were tested at the beginning of their Assessment 1 to Assessment 2 and was seventh-grade year and testing students on the computed by subtracting the number of sixth grade standards would reflect what questions students answered correctly on the students were suppose to have learned first assessment (out of 28) from the number following the completion of their previous students answered correctly on the second year of schooling. The assessment questions assessment (out of 28). The change score was represented adaptations of released items selected as the dependent variable following from the state’s general large-scale assessment Richards’s (1975) argument that change scores (Michigan Department of Education, 2006) representing the difference between pretest and released items from the National and posttest are appropriate, easier to Assessment of Educational Progress compute, and have greater meaning to non- (n.d.).The assessments were reviewed by well- researchers. Ability status (students with
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 22 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Figure 1: Graphical representation of study conditions. disabilities and students without disabilities) Assessment 1 to Assessment 2) than students and condition (calculator use on Assessment 1 who had access to a graphing calculator on or calculator use on Assessment 2) were the the first assessment but not the second. A two factors in the ANOVA. main effect for students’ gain scores was not found for ability status (students with Independent t-tests were also completed for disabilities vs. students without disabilities),
each condition with ability status as a factor. F(1,55) = .904, p = .345, suggesting that students For Condition 1 (access to a calculator on with disabilities did not differ from students Assessment 1), the dependent measure was without disabilities on their change scores students’ scores on the first assessment when from the first assessment to the second the graphing calculator was used. For assessment. Condition 2, the dependent measure was scores on the second assessment when Figure 2 depicts the graphical representation students had access to a graphing calculator. of the data of change scores for students with The mathematics assessments data also were and without disabilities by condition. The analyzed using frequency distributions. graph indicates illustrates the change in scores from Assessment 1 to Assessment 2 for the Results two groups of students (students with and without disabilities) via the two conditions Analyzing students’ change scores on the (calculator and then no calculator and no mathematics assessments from the first calculator and then calculator). It indicates assessment to the second assessment revealed that students who had a calculator on no statistically significant interaction for Assessment 2 had positive change scores –
ability status and condition, F(1,71) = .573, they did better on Assessment 2 than p = .452. However, a main effect for Assessment 1, regardless of ability (although condition (graphing calculator use on students with a disability were slightly higher), Assessment 1 vs. graphing calculator use on whereas students who had a calculator on
Assessment 2) was found, F(1,71) = 26.118, Assessment 1 had a negative change score, 2 p < .000, ηp = .269; β = .999. This suggests meaning they did better on Assessment 1 than that students who had access to a graphing Assessment 2. calculator on the second but not the first assessment showed greater gains (from
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 23 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Figure 2: Change score from first assessment to second assessment across condition and ability. All students, regardless of ability, answered graphing calculator answered an average of more problems correctly on the mathematics 5.23 questions correctly and students without assessment when they had access to a disabilities answered an average of 8.63 graphing calculator. For those who had access correctly, as opposed to students who did not to a graphing calculator on Assessment 1, have access to a graphing calculator (average students with disabilities answered an average of 1.17 correct for students with disabilities of 3.17 questions correctly and students and 4.07 for students without disabilities). The without disabilities answered an average of 8 change score in Condition 1 for students with questions correctly (see 1 for means). This is a disability was a -2.0 and -3.93 for students in contrast to students who did not have without disabilities. However, in Condition 2 access to a graphing calculator on the first the change score for students with disabilities assessment, in which students with disabilities was +2.92 as compared to +2.7 for students averaged 2.31 correct responses and students without disabilities (refer to Table 1). without disabilities averaged 5.93 correct responses. Similarly on Assessment 2, The t-tests for each condition with ability students with disabilities who had access to a status (students with disabilities and students
Table 1 Means for Scores by Ability Status and Condition
Condition 1 Condition 2 SWD (6) SWOD (29) SWD (13) SWOD (27) Assessment 1 3.17 8 2.31 5.93 Assessment 2 1.17 4.07 5.23 8.63 Change score -2.0 -3.93 +2.92 +2.7 Note: SWD refers to students with disabilities; SWOD refers to students without disabilities
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 24 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 without disabilities) as a factor suggest that mathematics assessments and students with graphing calculators are not a valid disabilities (Bouck, in press; Bouck & Bouck, accommodation. The independent t-test for 2008; Fuchs et al., 2000; Shaftel et al., 2003). Condition 1, with the dependent variable of The results support previous research by scores on Assessment 1 and ability as a factor, replicating that access to a calculator can was significant, t(33) = 2.453, p = .02, favoring result in performance gains by students with students without disabilities. The independent and without disabilities; yet do not support t-test for Condition 2, with the dependent calculators as a valid accommodation on variable of scores on Assessment 2 and ability mathematics assessments. The lack of as a factor, was significant, t(38) = 2.508, students with disabilities benefiting more p = .017, also favoring students without from a calculator might suggest that, while disabilities. The significant t-tests suggest that calculators help minimize the mental math students with disabilities did not benefit more mistakes of these students, they do not than students without disabilities when given compensate for lower conceptual access to a graphing calculator as an understanding. Lower conceptual accommodation; in fact, students without understanding by some students with disabilities benefited more. disabilities as compared to some students without disabilities might explain the Discussion statistically significant benefit to students without a disability when given a calculator. This study sought to answer the question: However, this interpretation from this limited Does the use of a graphing calculator result in research is not intended to be used as a performance differences on standards-based, rationale for denial of services to students open-ended, problem-solving assessments for with disabilities or a dismissal of calculator use students with and without disabilities? The by either population. results indicate that both students with and without disabilities answered more open- Outcomes and Benefits ended, problem-solving questions correctly with access to a graphing calculator than Students with disabilities have historically without. However, the results further suggest performed worse in mathematics than that graphing calculators are not a valid students without disabilities. For example, assessment accommodation, given the students with disabilities often struggle with definition of a valid accommodation, as one in automaticity of basic facts, computation which students with disabilities benefit to a problems, and problem-solving (Cawley, greater extent than students without Parmar, Fley, Salmon, & Roy, 2001; Jitendra, disabilities (Elbaum, 2007). DiPipi, & Perron-Jones, 2002; Montague, 1992; Woodward & Montague, 2002). The The findings of this study indicate that both data from this study suggest that calculators as students with and without disabilities an assistive technology tool cannot solve all performed better on standards-based, open- the mathematical challenges faced by students ended, problem-solving mathematics with disabilities. A lack of conceptual assessments when they had access to a understanding of a mathematical idea cannot graphing calculator. This is not necessarily be overcome through the use of a calculator. surprising given that a calculator can reduce While calculators can reduce mental mistakes students’ mental math mistakes. These or students’ struggle with basic facts, which is findings both support and extend previous a positive result, they cannot generate an research regarding calculator use on
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 25 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 understanding of a mathematical concept if a the research when deciding if and/or when student does not possess it. calculators are a valid accommodation and should be allowed on assessments (Fuchs et Hence, a need exists to increase the al., 2005). mathematical conceptual understanding of students with disabilities. Additional Limitations instruction focused on making sense and understanding mathematical ideas rather than This study has a few limitations in that only efficiency with procedures is needed for one school district was involved. It was students with disabilities. This is not to say conducted with a limited number of students that students with disabilities should not be in total and specifically students with given access to a calculator, as clearly these disabilities. Another limitation involved students benefited from having access (i.e., missing data, which was a result of the length answered more correctly with a calculator of the assessments. Twenty-eight open- than without). Allowing students with response, problem-solving questions were too disabilities access to a calculator has the many for students with and without potential to give teachers greater insight into disabilities to complete in one class period. students’ true mathematical knowledge bases Students who did not finish either assessment when they are not hung-up by mental math or employed different test-taking strategies, such basic facts mistakes. as starting at the beginning and finishing as much as one could or skipping around and In conclusion, the data from this study on answering questions the student thought s/he calculators as an assistive technology knew. Finally, data was not analyzed at the accommodation on mathematical assessments level of type of disability, rather disability suggested all students, regardless of ability classifications were aggregated together. Data status, performed better on the open-ended, also was not aggregated for students with problem-solving assessments aligned to state disabilities who were indicated to need a standards when they had access to a graphing calculator as an accommodation versus those calculator. Yet, the data also suggested that students whose IEP did not specify as such. graphing calculators are not a valid While accommodations are meant to be accommodation when using Elbaum’s (2007) determined on an individual student level definition of a valid assessments given a student’s strengths and challenges, this accommodation, as students with disabilities study sought to begin to examine calculators did not benefit to a greater extent than as assessment accommodations. Future students without disabilities from access to research should address the limitations of this this tool. This is of particular importance study. given that 14 states within the United States of America allow calculators as Future Directions accommodations on large-scale assessments, 14 allow them under certain circumstances, 1 Additional research is needed regarding allows them but with implications for scoring, mathematics assessment accommodations, 7 allow them under specific circumstances and particularly for standardized tests following with implications for scoring, and 5 consider mandates under NCLB. Specifically, them a non-standard accommodation but additional research is needed to examine with no implications for scoring (Lazarus, graphing calculators as valid Thurlow, Lail, Eisenbraun, & Kato, 2006). accommodations–both in the classroom for Educators and policymakers need to consider daily use and on assessments. Future research
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 26 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 should replicate studies like this as well as (2004) extend the ages examined (i.e., elementary and Jitendra, A., DiPipi, C. M., & Perron-Jones, high school). Finally, research should explore N. (2002). An exploratory study of calculators as accommodations on a range of schema-based word – problem - solving assessment types, such as computation instruction for middle school students problem, problem-solving questions, and in with learning disabilities: An emphasis on situations simulating standardized testing conceptual and procedural understanding. situations as well as other mathematics strands Journal of Special Education, 36, 23-38. (i.e., geometry). Koenig, J. A., & Bachman, L. F. (Eds.). (2004). Keeping score for all: The effects of References inclusion and accommodation policies on large- scale educational assessments. Washington, Bouck, E. C. (in press). Calculating the value DC: National Academies Press. of graphing calculators for seventh grade Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E., students with and without disabilities: A Eisenbraun, K. D., & Kato, K. (2006). pilot study. Remedial and Special Education. 2005 state policies on assessment participation Bouck, E. C., & Bouck, M. K. (2008). Does it and accommodations for students with disabilities add up? Calculators as accommodations (Synthesis Report 64). Minneapolis, MN: for sixth grade students with disabilities. University of Minnesota, National Center Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved 17-32. March 5, 2006, from http:// Cawley, J., Parmar, R., Fley, T. E., Salmon, S., education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ & Roy, S. (2001). Arithmetic performance Synthesis64. of students: Implications for standards Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2000). Best and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, practices for teaching mathematics to 311-328. secondary students with special needs. Elbaum, B. (2007). Effects of an oral testing Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(5), 1-22. accommodation on the mathematics Michigan Department of Education. (2006). performance of secondary students with Mathematics grade level content expectations and without learning disabilities. Journal of v.12.05. Lansing, MI: Author. Retrieved Special Education, 40, 218-229. February 12, 2006, from Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Fair and http://www.michigan.gov/documents/M unfair testing accommodations. School athGLCE_140486_7.pdf. Administrator, 10(56), 24-29. Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Capizzi, A. (2005). and metacognitive strategy instruction on Identifying appropriate test the mathematical problem-solving of accommodations for students with middle school students with learning learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Children, 37(6), 1-8. 25, 230-248. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, National Assessment of Educational Progress. C. L., & Karns, K. M. (2000). (n.d.). NAEP questions. IES National Supplementing teacher judgments of Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved mathematics test accommodations with February 8, 2008, from http:// objective data sources. School Psychology nces.ed.gov/nationalreportcard/ITMRLS Review, 29, 3-24. /startsearech.asp Individuals with Disabilities Education National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2000). Principles and NCTM standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 27 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et students with disabilities in statewide assessment seq. (2001) programs (Synthesis Report 15). Richards, J. M. (1975). A simulation study of Minneapolis: University of Minnesota the use of change measures to compare National Center on Educational educational programs. American Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from Research Journal, 12, 299-311. http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/ School Matters. (n.d.). Welcome to School SynthesisReport015.pdf Matters. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from http://www.schoolmatters.com/ Shaftel, J., Belton-Kocher, E., Glasnapp, D. R., & Poggio, J. P. (2003). The differential impact of accommodations in statewide assessment: Research summary. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/Topic Areas/Accommodations/Kansas.htm. Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2003). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Morse, A. B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 38, 232-240. Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439-450. Tindal, G., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2004, January). Research on mathematics test accommodations relevant to NAEP testing. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/ conferences/tindal.pdf. Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 89-101. Ysseldyke, J. M., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew. K. S., & Shriner, J. G. (1994). Recommendations for making decisions about participation of
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 28 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Campus Community Partnerships with People Who Are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing
Jamie Matteson Christine K. Kha Diane J. Hu Chih-Chieh Cheng Lawrence Saul Georgia Robins Sadler University of California, San Diego
Abstract: In 1997, the Moores University of to gain feedback on how their devices might California, San Diego (UCSD) Cancer Center best serve them. and advocacy groups for people who are deaf and hard of hearing launched a highly Keywords: Deaf and hard-of-hearing, successful cancer control collaborative. In Assistive technology, Computer science, 2006, faculty from the Computer Science Focus groups Department at UCSD invited the collaborative to help develop a new track in In 2006, computer science faculty at the their doctoral program. This track would train University of California, San Diego (UCSD) computer scientists to be culturally competent recognized the need to develop a cadre of when working with people who have hearing doctoral level-trained computer science and visual challenges, with the ultimate goal of graduates who were interested in developing developing assistive living devices that would technological devices to improve the quality be welcomed by, and useful to, the anticipated of life of people who had visual or hearing end users. Faculty and students began challenges. While they had the necessary developing ideas for technological advances faculty to provide the scientific training, they that were anticipated to benefit people who lacked faculty who could assist their students are deaf and hard-of-hearing. Computer to develop the cultural competency needed to science graduate students and faculty worked work with people who were visually or with the medical school faculty, staff, and hearing challenged. undergraduates to design culturally competent focus groups for people who were deaf and In their search for colleagues to help them hard-of-hearing. The focus groups were work with each of these groups, they designed to gather opinions of these discovered colleagues at the Moores UCSD presumed end users about three, very Cancer Center who had been successfully promising ideas for assistive listening devices. collaborating with deaf and hard-of-hearing The result was a productive interchange advocacy groups since 1997 to create cancer between the computer science team and focus control education programs for people with group members. The insights garnered have hearing challenges. Thus, the computer subsequently been used to refine the three science faculty had found not only faculty devices. This paper provides an overview of colleagues, but through them, access to the how computer science students were trained nationwide network of deaf and hard-of- to present their technological innovations to hearing advocacy groups that the Cancer people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing and
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 29 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Center had found to help them achieve their greatest gain from the technological educational vision. innovations being developed.
Meanwhile, the Moores’ faculty and staff and Method their colleagues from the community-based advocacy groups for people who are deaf or Review the Literature hard-of-hearing had been searching for other UCSD researchers who might be interested in For the first step in the process of preparing working with them to expand the research on students to collaborate effectively with people behalf of people with hearing challenges. The who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, faculty gave core research team that resulted from this new students a collection of articles to help them collaboration included faculty members from understand the many subtle distinctions that Computer Science, Bioengineering, and Public exist among people with audiological Health, doctoral students in Computer differences (Eckhardt & Anastas, 2006; Science, and undergraduates with prior Iezzoni, O'Day, Killeen, & Harker, 2004; experience with the Moores UCSD Cancer Lane, 2002, 2005; Levy, 2002; Padden, & Education for people who are deaf and hard Humphries, 1988; Phelan, & Parkman, 1995; of hearing. Pollard, 1992; Stebnicki & Coeling, 1999). The reading material was intended to help the Hearing loss is the 6th most common chronic students learn how to interact in a culturally condition in the United States, and affects competent manner with people who are deaf between two and four of every 1,000 people and hard-of-hearing. These articles were in the United States (Barnett, 2002; Pleis & derived from a larger collection of articles that Lethbridge-Cejku, 2006). These individuals were being used to create a cadre of offer computer science researchers many physicians who would help people with opportunities to create devices that will hearing challenges gain better access to health further their pursuit of innovation, while information and care (Farber, Nakaji, & discovering ways to improve people’s Sadler, 2004). immediate quality of living. Distinctions in terminology. The students The aim of this study was to conceptualize learned that the spectrum of people with assistive listening devices that might be hearing deficits range from those who are feasible and beneficial to people who are deaf hard-of-hearing to people who are deaf. and hard-of-hearing. Focus groups were Generally, people who are hard-of-hearing will conducted to assemble people who were deaf have been educated in standard classroom and hard-of-hearing together with laboratory- settings and provided with accommodations based researchers in order to exchange ideas when possible. Their hearing loss may have about the assistive listening devices and to occurred early in life or later, as an determine which would be of greatest value accompaniment of the aging process. This for deaf and hard-of-hearing people. This subgroup can also include people who are paper offers readers an introduction to deaf. They will only rarely have learned sign understanding the differences in groups along language and will culturally align themselves the spectrum of deafness and describes the with the other members of their ethnic group. focus group structure, which the team tested They communicate with speech and use either and found to be very useful in gathering data one or a combination of oral, lip reading, and from the people who were intended to derive signing methods (Stebnicki & Coeling, 1999).
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 30 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
People who are culturally deaf will likely have Brainstorming of Assistive Devices had very different education and social experiences from people who are hard-of- The program faculty asked several of their hearing. Distinctions among these individuals community collaborators to review their ideas are influenced by whether the person became for a small collection of devices that the deaf before or after the full acquisition of faculty and students thought might be both speech and whether they were educated in useful and feasible to develop. From that schools for the deaf or mainstream schools group, they were asked to select the two or with accommodations. Deaf with a capital ‘D’ three ideas that they perceived would most refers to a cultural group as opposed to deaf benefit people with hearing loss. The devices with a lower case ‘d’ which refers to people selected for exploration were a dialogue with a hearing loss (Padden & Humphries, facilitator, an audio event detector, and a 1988; Stebnicki & Coeling, 1999). Members of volume detector. the Deaf community share a common language (i.e., American Sign Language [ASL] The first assistive listening device, the Dialogue in the U.S.) and a culture (i.e., Deaf culture). Facilitator, would build upon the rapidly The Deaf community is rooted in a rich expanding field of voice recognition software. culture, having their own clubs, social It converts the hearing user’s speech into text, networks, and traditions. The Deaf which the person with hearing loss can read community may include individuals who have on a computer screen and print out for been deaf or hard-of-hearing since birth or immediate and later review. By including those who have acquired hearing loss later in medical vocabulary, the dialogue facilitator life, but gaining membership requires the use could help deaf or hard-of-hearing patients of ASL, an important quality of Deafness communicate in a physician’s office. It was (Padden & Humphries, 1988). envisioned that at the doctor’s office, both the doctor and patient will sit near a computer. Approval of Study The physician will speak into a microphone, and the words that are said will be displayed Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval on the computer screen. The patient can read was secured for this study, since the opinions from the computer screen to catch words or and ideas of human participation were to be phrases that were missed. In the end, a full gathered. IRB approved the recruitment copy of the conversation can be printed out flyers, consent forms, and focus group scripts for the patient to keep. Such a device would prior to use. The consent documents were be most helpful to people who are deaf or written with the recognition that a portion of hard-of-hearing with relatively high literacy the study participants would have learned rates in the spoken language. English as a second language and as a result, would have limited English proficiency. Since The second assistive listening device, the some participants were likely to have no Audio Event Detector, would recognize and English language literacy, and there is no notify users of selected words, prompts, and written form of ASL, an interpreter or staff sounds from the user’s environment. Example member fluent in ASL was always available to sounds include the call of the user’s name, an provide an ASL interpretation of the consent emergency alarm, a phone ring, and keywords document (Meador & Zazove, 2005). for social activities, such as ‘Bingo.’ The user can program five to ten target sounds onto the device, which is designed to be small and wearable.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 31 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
The third assistive listening device, the Volume Association of Late Deafened Adults Detector, would provide users who were hard- [ALDA], and the Hearing Loss Association of of-hearing with immediate feedback on the California). Additional recruitment was done level of their vocal projections. People who through community venues that attracted suffer from hearing loss often have difficulties people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, such with modulating their own voice levels against as ministries that provide accommodations the surrounding environment. This device for people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing simultaneously measures the level of and social gatherings (e.g., pizza nights, coffee surrounding noise and the level of the nights, and health seminars that are individual's speech. If a significant discrepancy specifically for people who are deaf and hard- is detected between these two levels, the of-hearing). Potential participants were given device will notify the individual to either a copy of the IRB-approved flyer to help increase or decrease his or her volume level. them retain the information they were given by the study recruiter, to serve as a reminder The Computer Science team members then of the focus group schedule and location, and began developing prototypes of these devices. to share with others who might be interested The Cancer Center team members began (Merrell, Kinsella, Murphy, Philpin, & Ali, recruiting potential participants for focus 2006). The recruiter explained that focus group discussions about the usefulness of group participants would receive a $15 gift those devices for people who are deaf or card to a local grocery store chain in hard-of-hearing. appreciation for their participation, as well as healthy refreshments at the focus group. Developing the Focus Groups The study recruiter also asked if potential Eligibility requirements. Eligibility participants would be willing to share the requirements for study participation included: names and contact information of other (a) self-identification as a person who is deaf people who might be interested in learning or hard-of-hearing, (b) being at least 18 years about the study (i.e., snowball sampling; of age, and (c) having the competency to Wasserman, Pattison, & Steinley, 2005). These understand and sign a consent document. methods of recruiting make it difficult to Based on prior experience in conducting determine an accurate refusal rate since the focus groups, the Cancer Center researchers denominator (those invited) is unknown. This anticipated that for every three people who is compounded by the fact that some people said they would agree to attend a focus group, may have been willing to participate, but were one could be expected to arrive. unavailable during the times that the focus groups were scheduled. Recruitment of focus group participants. The Cancer Center team members initiated a Preparations for conducting focus groups. person-to-person recruitment strategy to When researchers work with people outside populate the focus groups. Known members of their own community or cultural group, it of the Deaf community were contacted using is essential that they seek guidance on how to multiple communication strategies, including cooperate with the group in a culturally face-to-face conversations, emails, instant competent manner (Munoz-Baell & Ruiz, messaging, direct phone and calls through 2000; Stebnicki & Coeling, 1999). Before videophone, and posting of IRB-approved conducting the first focus group, the research flyers at affinity organizations in San Diego team held a three-hour practice session with (e.g., Deaf Community Services [DCS], two staff members from the Cancer Center
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 32 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 who were members of the Deaf community produce quality video tapes that would and had experience in conducting focus capture not only the video of the interpreters’ groups with people who are deaf and hard-of- and participants’ signing, but also the hearing. Two hearing undergraduates were interactive aspects of the focus groups’ also part of this research team. They had been dynamics. Since there were considerable costs working on the Cancer Center’s Deaf incurred in conducting each focus group, and community cancer education program and since the recording of the focus group was had been trained in cultural sensitivity for the central to the success of the project, an extra Deaf community. They assisted with the set- video camera was always available in case one up of cameras and lighting for the recording of the other two cameras malfunctioned. of the focus groups. Additional considerations involved keeping Four interpreters were hired to provide the expense of conducting the focus groups additional advice on the optimal logistical within the projected budget that was partially configuration of the focus groups’ participants funded through the University’s Chancellor’s and presenters. The practice session also gave Interdisciplinary Collaboratories grants. the computer science graduate students their (Note: These are small, innovation grants that first opportunity to work with ASL are anticipated to promote interdisciplinary interpreters. In addition, the practice session collaborations and yield the experience and gave the students the chance to learn how data needed to secure subsequent funding.) best to employ their visual aids and helped When working with focus groups, the planned them to learn the best way to pace and budget should allow for expected costs such organize the presentation of their materials. as stipends and tuition remission for students, The principle investigator (Sadler) for the hourly wages for interpreters, recording Cancer Center’s Deaf community cancer- equipment, participant incentives, and related research projects assumed the role of refreshments for the focus groups. overseeing the practice session and providing the doctoral students with additional When calculating interpreters’ cost, it is immediate feedback on ways to improve the important to remember that for sessions that effectiveness of their presentations and their will last longer than 45 minutes, a second cultural competency. interpreter must also be hired so that the interpreters can relieve each other. This is not Developing the optimal room configuration only essential for the well being of each was a key logistical consideration during the interpreter, but also to avoid interpreter practice session. The first goal was to provide fatigue that will lead to diminished quality of optimal light without creating glare. The communication. In the focus groups, a team second goal was to provide strong enough of two interpreters is needed for translating lighting to enable participants to make the presenter’s information into ASL and one accurate distinctions among the subtle additional pair of interpreters is needed for up differences in various signs and the rapid to 10 members of the focus group so that finger spelling of ASL. Lighting and video their communications in ASL can be camera considerations had to take into translated into English for the presenter’s account that all members of the focus group understanding. In addition, for people who had to be in direct visual contact with each are hard-of-hearing and do not sign, a real- other to communicate in ASL. Placement of time captionist must be available to convert the cameras also influenced the room’s the spoken words into written format. Again, configuration because it was essential to depending on the duration and the size of the
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 33 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
focus group, more than one person may be address the needs of that group; the first two required. focus groups were planned primarily for deaf individuals, and the last one was intended A final consideration that can increase the primarily for people who were hard-of- quality of the focus groups is the pre-event hearing. preparation of the interpreters. Providing a written summary of the content of the The students were told to exactly follow the presentation planned, a glossary of technical IRB-approved focus group protocol, which terms, and time for the interpreter to ask included individually greeting and welcoming questions of the presenter can significantly the participants as they arrived and inviting improve the quality of the interpreter’s them to partake in the refreshments. Once all transmission of the information. expected participants had arrived, the students were to give a formal introduction of the Protocol for Focus Groups entire research team and fully explain the goals of the focus group. They would then All three, two-hour-long focus groups were take the participants through the full IRB- scheduled to be conducted at the Moores approved consenting process with documents UCSD Cancer Center because it was a familiar in written English and presented in ASL. location to most participants due to the Video release consent forms were also Center’s long-term educational collaboration included to ask for participants’ permission with people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. for the video tapes to be used for research, Each focus group was designated for a training, and presentations at scientific and particular group of people in order to better Table 1 Focus Group Discussion Guide
Device 1: Volume Detector Will this device be useful for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing? Would you use a device like this? In what situations?? How would you like to wear it? Attached like a pager? In a pocket? Other? How would this device notify you? Vibrations? Lights? Other? What else? How can it best serve you?
Device 2: Dialogue Facilitator Will this device be useful for people who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing? How would it be useful for you? Is there anything about this device that you would like to modify? Will this device be useful in other scenarios besides a doctor’s office? How important is it to you that this device is mobile? How small would this device have to be? How often do you visit the doctor? What is usually the format of these visits? Do you ever have trouble communicating with your doctor? Do you communicate with your doctor using an interpreter?
Device 3: Sound Detector Will this device be useful for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing? How would it be useful for you? Is there anything about this device that you would like to modify? What are some useful sounds or words that you would program onto this device? How would you like to wear this device? How would you like this device to alert you? Which of the three devices presented would you be most interested in using?
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 34 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 educational conferences. the video equipment failed or parts of the videotaped discussion were inaudible. A back The computer science student was to remind up audio recording device is, therefore, also a the participants of her name and then give a wise investment. thorough explanation of the device being presented. She would then lead the focus The transcription of the audio tape would be group discussion about the device with the done as soon as possible after each focus help of a Cancer Center staff member who group. That transcription would then be was deaf and proficient in ASL. Table 1 lists compared with the dialogue on the video tape the questions that were to be used for each as a double check for accuracy. The relevant device to guide the discussions throughout the transcription of the focus groups would then focus groups. The questions were developed be coded into thematic clusters, the frequency by the computer science students and project data would be determined, and conclusions faculty and approved by IRB. They focused would be developed. on gaining an understanding of how the potential end-user might employ the device, Participants how the prototype of the originally conceived device should be modified to make it more The participants ranged in age from 24 to 75 user friendly, and whether there were other yrs (see Table 2). For females, the average age potential uses for the device that had not been of the participants was 53; for males, 43. The identified. As the focus groups were group included 12 deaf participants and three approaching completion, the computer hard-of-hearing participants (one did not science students were to ask the participants if answer the question) and had diverse modes they would like to be notified if any of the of communication. One of the group devices reached the point of readiness for members had completed high school, 11 had (beta) testing. Finally, to further strengthen attended some college, and four had the students’ and focus group members’ completed college or beyond. While the comfort working across language and culture participants’ ethnic diversity was not barriers, the computer science students were representative of the region’s racial/ethnic to encourage the focus group participants to characteristics, it was the need to assure a stay a little longer for social exchange and diversity of hearing-related characteristics that refreshments after the focus group. primarily drove the recruitment efforts in the area of attaining sample diversity. Field Notes and Transcription Results During the practice session, the placement of an audio tape was also tested along with the Impact of the Practice Session on Data Gathering in best position for the undergraduate students the Focus Groups to sit when they were gathering field notes. The undergrads needed to be unobtrusive Comparing the students’ experiences in the recorders of key observations and also able to practice focus group session to the consistent periodically check to assure the proper and high quality results of the three focus functioning of the video and audio recording group sessions, there could be no doubt of equipment. The audio tape recording was the demonstrable benefits that were gained made because it is easier to transcribe from an from the single practice session. The room audio tape than a video tape, and these configuration was changed multiple times audiotapes served as a back-up strategy in case during the practice session to address issues
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 35 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 2 Focus Group Participant Demographics (n=16)
Category Total Gender Male 10 Female 6 Race/Ethnicity Black/African American 1 White/Caucasian 15 Age 18-30 4 31-40 2 41-50 2 51-60 4 61+ 4 Identity† Prelingually deafened (Became deaf before speech acquisition) 12 Postlingually deafened (Became deaf after speech acquisition) 0 Late deafened 0 Hard-of-Hearing 3 Primary Mode of Communication†† ASL 13 Pidgin Sign English (PSE) 2 Sign Exact English (SEE) 0 Total Communication (sign, speech, lip-read, etc.) 3 Oral 2 Cued Speech (hand movement paired with visual signs that represent phonetics) 0 †One participant did not answer this question. ‡Some participants chose two primary modes of communication related to (a) achieving optimal lighting; (b) Students’ Acquisition of Cultural Competency filming to include all participants; (c) ensuring clear audio pick-up; (d) maintaining direct The reading materials combined with the visual access among all parties involved in the practice session were sufficient to help the focus groups; (e) providing interpreter students gain an appropriate level of cultural accommodations; and (f) seeing the presenter, competency in their presentations and interpreter, and slides simultaneously. interactions with the members of the focus groups. Following each focus group session, Following the practice session, the three focus the participants: (a) volunteered comments group sessions preceded extremely smoothly, expressing their appreciation of the students’ the recordings were of sufficient clarity and clear efforts to be deaf-friendly; (b)expressed entirely audible, and the data gathered was of excitement about the devices; (c) stayed after very high quality and directly addressed the the focus groups to talk to the individual students’ information needs. Figure 1 presents presenters and staff members; (d) volunteered the final room configuration used for all three to participate in future focus groups; and (e) focus groups and is the one which would be unanimously agreed to be notified of the selected for all future focus groups of overall progress of the study, as well as future comparable size. opportunities to participate in research.
The computer science students gained valuable experience working with the
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 36 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 interpreters and an appreciation of the deaf team members, and interpreters. By importance of taking the time to learn giving the students suggestions throughout culturally competent ways to work with their presentation, the students had the people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. By opportunity to practice each lesson learned having a highly interactive practice session, during the remainder of their presentation, the doctoral students were able to hone their thus reinforcing the lessons. At the end of skills as they received real-time feedback from each presentation, the students received a their computer and behavioral science faculty, written summary of the key points they would
Figure 1. Optimal room configuration for up to 10 focus group participants.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 37 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 3 Culturally Competent Techniques for Conducting Focus Groups with People Who Are Deaf or Hard-of- Hearing
• Present visual information sequentially with oral presentation to allow participants to follow along. • Recognize the difference between Deaf and hard-of-hearing subgroups, and how this may affect their application of devices. Allow participants the opportunity to read the presenter’s lips by avoiding the following: • Turning face away from audience. • Talking behind hands. • Talking while the participants’ attention is diverted (eating food, taking a break, etc.). Display competency working with interpreters, including: • Giving eye contact to the participant, rather than the interpreter. • Allowing time for the interpreter to translate, by speaking slowly or pausing between statements. • Using more common and less technical terms. • Taking breaks to allow interpreters to rest. • Bringing the group to order by waving arms or flicking lights on and off. • Providing visual components that are easily accessed: • Using a PowerPoint™ presentation with diagrams and pictures to illustrate the physical devices. • Incorporating key terms, and avoid unnecessary details. • Accommodating color-blind participants, by avoiding red and green colors. • Choosing fonts that are easier to read, rather than those that are more aesthetically appealing. need to practice and remember to do correctly They also learned the value of adding slides during the actual focus groups. with keywords and pictures as a visual supplement to the presentation. Equally Table 3 includes examples of the lessons important, students learned that their slides students learned about cultural competency should only include colors that are accessible during the practice focus group session. For to people who are color blind to assure example, they learned that one culturally optimal accuracy of the transmitted acceptable way of gaining attention from an information (Cole, 2004). As a result of the audience of deaf and hard-of-hearing people practice focus group session, each student is to flick the room’s lights off and on quickly. developed a more detailed slide presentation Another example they learned is that they that better forecasted the order of the topics must first explain the visual aid they will be to be presented and enhanced the ease of showing to the audience. Then they show the understanding the complex information being audience the visual aid without further shared. Giving this depth of attention accompanying conversation. Finally, they to the cultural competency of the students’ recapture the audience’s attention by entering presentations coincidentally disclosed other into the audience’s visual field and signaling ways to enhance the students’ likelihood of the start of conversation before actually research success. The focus group setting is an initiating the conversation. Students learned unfamiliar one for most computer science that additional graphics and hands-on exhibits students. This practice session made it easy would increase the accuracy and speed the for the Moores behavioral science staff and transmission of information to their focus faculty to identify ways to help the students group participants. employ the social skills that are routinely used to put participants at ease in focus groups (see Table 4).
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 38 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 4 General Interpersonal and Presentation Skills
• Personally greet participants upon arrival. • Help participants get comfortable and access amenities. • Gain the attention of the entire audience before beginning the presentation. • Begin the presentation with a thorough introduction and overview. • To reduce disruptions, have the participants collect all refreshments and bring them to the table before the session begins • Allow participants to retrieve more refreshments between breaks in the presentation to assure their comfort. • Elicit feedback from the participants frequently. • Elicit responses from participants in random order. • Bring relevant sidebar discussion into mainstream discussion.
Evaluation of Budget Projections group for up to 10 participants.
The practice session was also useful in helping A total of four interpreters were used for the the faculty assess if they had correctly two focus groups with participants who were projected the funds that would be required to deaf (two oral and two signers). Two conduct the three focus groups planned or interpreters (one oral and one signer more whether adjustments would be needed to the English-language geared) were sufficient for budget or methodology. Since the faculty the hard-of-hearing focus groups. None of members were preparing subsequent research the participants indicated a need for a real- proposals, this practice session also gave them time captionist to provide simultaneous a more accurate assessment of the actual costs transcription of the focus group dialogue. of conducting focus groups with people who Hence, this cost is not included in the budget, are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Table 5 illustrates but should be a consideration when planning the approximate budget for a two-hour focus budget expenses for focus groups with people
Table 5 Estimated Costs for One Two-Hour Focus Group of 10 Participants
Item Price/Unit Qty. Total
One-Time Costs LCD Projector $1000 1 $1000 Cameras $ 600 3 $1800 Light Kit $ 100 2 $ 200 Audio Recorder $ 35 1-2 $ 35 - $70 Total Start-Up Costs $3,035 - $3,070 Per-Session Costs Video Tapes $4 6 $24 Audio Tapes + batteries $5 1 $5 Interpreters (costs vary by $130/2 hour minimum 4 $520 for 2 hours city) Participant Incentives $15 - $100 10 $150 - $1,000 Healthy Refreshments $8 per person 20 $160 Total Per-Session Costs $859 -$1,709
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 39 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 6 Insights Gained from Focus Groups
Theme Area Focus Group Advice and Changes Recommended General (across all three devices • Integrate devices with already owned gadgets, such as a PDAs, cell phones, or laptops • Need to be financially feasible. Device 1: Volume Detector Advice: • Needs to be small and portable. • More suitable to the hard-of-hearing community, because Deaf community does not typically use their voice. • Should have options for signal of volume, such as blinking lights and vibrations. Changes Recommended: • Add variation in intensity of signal to denote degrees of volume. Device 2: Dialogue Facilitator Advice: • Technology should not be a replacement for human interpreters; instead, it should supplement interpreting or be an alternative option. • Institutions (i.e. doctors and hospitals) should not control the use of this device; rather, the patients should be able to own this device and use it at their own discretion. • The device should be portable. • There are other scenarios (besides the doctor’s office) where the device would be useful, including at school, court, or a restaurant. • To interact back with the doctor, people preferred to type. Changes Recommended: • Make the screen very large so that the patient can more easily see the doctor and the screen at the same time. Device 3: Sound Detector Advice: • It should be easy for the user to record new ‘events’ that he or she wants to detect. • Must be small enough that the user can carry it around effortlessly. Changes Recommended: • Add an indicator to tell how close a certain sound is, perhaps a light that flashes at greater frequency when the sound is closer. • Add a timestamp to record when a certain sound occurs. • Add an indicator to show directionality of the origin of the sound. • Have the ability to record certain sounds so that they can be replayed to hearing friends to ask exactly what that sound was. who are hard-of-hearing or deaf. did participate were more attracted to the novelty of the experience, the chance to While it was possible to attract participants socialize with other deaf or hard-of-hearing with the $15 gift card incentive, this low people, or the opportunity to do a community amount was insufficient to attract participants service than the incentive and this may have quickly. It is also likely that the people who biased the sample to attract a more affluent
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 40 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 group of participants. Given the amount of lighting, however, would have ensured better time ultimately requested of the participants, accuracy and better teaching materials. an incentive in the range of $50 to $100 would have been more appropriate. Outcomes and Benefits
Insights Gained Related to Device Development from This study has been successful in meeting our the Focus Groups goal of teaching doctoral students how to overcome language and cultural barriers in The audio and visual recordings were order to engage the anticipated end users of successfully transcribed, coded, clustered, and their discoveries in meaningful discussions. interpreted into meaningful findings. All three Computer science students learned to focus groups’ participants expressed unique communicate with, and reach out to, people needs for, and applications of, the three from different cultural backgrounds. The identified devices. The participants were students created an environment in which insightful regarding the physical design, deaf and hard-of-hearing participants felt overall concept, and commercial markets for comfortable and where their collaboration the devices, both identifying and nullifying was genuinely appreciated. The participants’ ideas within these areas. The research team understanding of the material and acceptance found several common themes that were of the research team was demonstrated by the identified throughout all of the focus groups. overwhelming amount of feedback given and See Table 6 for examples of the identified the sincere interest shown for helping the themes, advice, and changes recommended by students to develop their devices. The focus group participants. students now have the confidence needed to work with people across communication, Most importantly, these insights would have language, and cultural barriers. They also have been difficult to derive without the input from learned the value of finding people who can the focus group participants. The three help them make a good first impression sessions provided achieved consensus on through cultural competency, how to create several key points, while also producing bridges to overcome interpersonal barriers, several new insights and ideas. Had fewer and the value of good prior planning. The focus groups been held, important insights they gained from the focus group information would have been missed. Since session expanded the students’ awareness of the three focus groups never reached the the value of collaborating with the presumed point where new information was not end-users of their devices to gain insights that provided, the additional focus groups will better focus their work. scheduled for the next stage of developmental feedback will likely yield further new ideas. Throughout the course of this study, the research team has accumulated valuable The audio portion of the recording allowed experiences for working with people who are for good transcription of the interpreters’ oral deaf or hard-of-hearing in a focus group translations. While the visual recordings were setting. The most important not of the highest quality, they were sufficient recommendations include the following. to supplement the audio recordings, to observe interactions and dynamics among the 1. Contact leaders who advocate on behalf of focus group participants, and to permit the people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. participants’ signs to be deciphered and the They are a valuable resource for overall messages to be understood. Better recruitment, knowledge about the
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 41 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
people to be served, and interpreting The practice session also provided the needs and services. Having the students’ with exposure to real life support of a community leader for a examples of language and cultural scientist’s research can be essential in considerations before the students acquiring the trust of other individuals gave their presentations. who have had limited experience with 6. Invest in good video and audio recording research. For this study, the majority devices. A high quality audio recording of contacts established were gained and a high-resolution camera make through DCS, which has peer clear transcriptions possible, a associations nationwide. particularly important concern when 2. Become familiar with the people to be served the fine hand and finger movements and their culture. This knowledge of ASL must be understood. Having a allowed this study’s researchers to person take field notes can also enrich establish better communication and the interpretation of the transcription. trust with their study participants who 7. Have a deaf or hard of hearing person assist were deaf or heard of hearing as well with focus group facilitation. This will help as future collaboration opportunities. participants feel more comfortable 3. Use professional interpreters when attempting and be more willing to share their to communicate in the absence of a common ideas and opinions. language. For many deaf people, ASL is 8. Recognize the many characteristics among their primary language. Local people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Such advocacy organizations can put characteristics can create diverse researchers in contact with communication accommodation interpreting services and advise the needs, as well as diverse opinions. researcher on determining the One option is to group together appropriate level of interpreting participants with like accommodation expertise to request, so that the needs to facilitate intra-group interpreters’ skills will match the communication. Alternatively, since interpreting needs. people with different hearing 4. Recognize that people who are deaf and hard- challenges might think of different of-hearing rely upon more than one form of applications for the same device, communication. It is appropriate to bringing people with diverse inquire which methods should be characteristics together is likely to provided to accommodate each expand the ideas raised for discussion. person best. Since interpreters must Having more diversity within this be scheduled at least a week in study’s focus groups allowed advance, it is essential to inquire about participants to gain insights from each participants’ preferred mode of other, as one group recognized a value communication well before their in an aspect of a device that the others arrival at the focus group. This is a had not considered. critical step since clear communication is federally mandated for the Conclusion consenting process. 5. Value a practice session. In our study, this Teaching tomorrow’s computer science was the most valuable resource for researchers how to work across planning the room layout, interpreter communication, language, and cultural accommodations, positions of barriers to reach the intended end-users of recording equipment, and the budget.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 42 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
their discoveries enriches students’ learning, Gray, P. (2002). Psychology (4th ed.). New while helping them to create devices that will York: Worth. better serve their end-users. When the Iezzoni, L., O'Day, B., Killeen, M., & Harker, intended end-user is a person who is deaf or H. (2004). Communicating about health hard-of-hearing, special accommodations care: observations from persons who are must be considered. This study demonstrates deaf or hard-of-hearing. Annals of Internal the value of collaborating with intended end- Medicine, 140, 356-362. users and prior preparation for doing so. It Kaskowitz, S. R., Nakaji, M., Clark, K., offers specific strategies that all researchers Gunsauls, D., & Sadler, G. (2006). who seek to improve the well-being and Bringing prostate cancer education to deaf quality of life of people who are deaf or hard- men. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 30, of-hearing can employ. 439-448. Lane, H. (2002). Do deaf people have a Acknowledgements disability? Sign Language Studies, 2, 356-379. Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, ethics, and the The authors acknowledge the following deaf-world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf sources of support for this study: the UCSD Education, 10, 291-310. Chancellor’s Interdisciplinary Collaboratories Levy, N. (2002). Deafness, culture, and Program and the NIH grants: R25 CA65745- choice. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 284- 11; 2P30 CA023100-23; 2P60 MD000220-06; 285. U56 CA92079; and U56 CA92081. The Meador, H., & Zazove, P. (2005). Health care authors would also like to thank members of interactions with deaf culture. The Journal the Moores UCSD Cancer Center Deaf staff, of the American Board of Family Practice, 18, Patricia Branz, Matthew Fager, Jesse Jones, 218-222. III, and Dr. Melanie Nakaji, who helped to Merrell, J., Kinsella, F., Murphy, F., Philpin, assure the cultural competency of this project S., & Ali, A. (2006). Accessibility and and for their contributions to the equity of health and social care services: development of this paper. Exploring the views and experiences of Bangladeshi carers in South Wales, UK. References Health & Social Care in the Community, 14, 197-205. Barnett, S. (2002). Communication with deaf Munoz-Baell, I., & Ruiz, M. (2000). and hard-of-hearing people: A guide for Empowering the deaf. Let the deaf be medical education. Academic Medicine: deaf. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Journal of the Association of American Medical Health, 54(1), 40-44. Colleges, 77, 694-700. Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in Cole, B. L. (2004). The handicap of abnormal America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, colour vision. Clinical & Experimental MA: Harvard University Press. Optometry: Journal of the Australian Phelan, M., & Parkman, S. (1995). How to Optometrical Association, 87, 258-275. work with an interpreter. British Medical Eckhardt, E., & Anastas, J. (2006). Research Journal, 311, 555-557. methods with disabled populations. Journal Pleis, J. R., & Lethbridge-Cejku, M. (2006). of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: 6, 233-249. National health interview survey, 2005. Farber, J. H., Nakaji, M. C., & Sadler, G. R. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of (2004). Medical students, deaf patients and Health and Human Services. (Vital Health cancer. Medical Education, 38, 1201. Statistics, Series 10). Retrieved July 31, 2008, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 43 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
data/series/sr_10/sr10_232.pdf Pollard, R. (1992). 100 years in psychology and deafness: A centennial retrospective. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 26(3), 32-46. Stebnicki, J. A., & Coeling, H. V. (1999). The culture of the deaf. Journal of Transcultural Nursing: Official Journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society, 10, 350-357. Wasserman, S., Pattison, P., & Steinley, D. (2005). Social networks. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, 3, 1866-1871.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 44 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Sight Word Recognition Among Young Children At-Risk: Picture-Supported vs. Word-Only
Hedda Meadan Julia B. Stoner Howard P. Parette Illinois State University
Abstract: A quasi-experimental design was provide the foundation for the development used to investigate the impact of Picture of reading which is fundamental for Communication Symbols (PCS) on sight word independence in our society (International recognition by young children identified as ‘at Reading Association [IRA] & National risk’ for academic and social-behavior Association for the Education of Young difficulties. Ten pre-primer and 10 primer Children [NAEYC], 1996). Dolch words were presented to 23 students in the intervention group and 8 students in the According to Karchmer, Mallette, and Leu control group during interactive games. (2003) traditional understanding of emergent Assessments occurred at four points and literacy skill development and effective results indicated that children in the control strategies for teaching these skills must group learned sight words faster under similar continually be examined from a conditions of activities and time. These comprehensive perspective (Kamil, Intrator, findings are consistent with previous literature & Kim, 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; and offer further insight into the learning of Neuman & Dickinson, 2001). Such a sight words by this population. Interactive perspective must, of necessity, consider that games proved effective with children; they young children are exposed to and use an learned quickly over a relatively short time array of technologies in their daily lives exposure. In the last assessment (word and (Loveless & Dore, 2002; McGee & Richgels, picture) the intervention group performed 2006; Stephen & Plowman, 2003), and that better than the control group, indicating that their experiences with technologies transform pictures assisted young children to identify the very nature of literacy (Anderson, Grant, and learn new words in a relatively short & Speck, 2008; Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & period of time. Marra, 2003; Turbill & Murray, 2006). More specifically, the multimodal demands of Key Words: Early intervention, Emergent interacting with technologies, even at an early literacy, Assistive technology, Picture age, require education professionals to rethink communication symbols, Sight word how emergent literacy skills are developed recognition (Jewitt, 2006; Turbill & Murray).
A number of emergent literacy skills have A comprehensive perspective that embraces been deemed to be of importance for future the idea that young children are already reading development (Clay, 1975; National learning about the world around them and Reading Panel, 2000; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). developing understandings of the importance These include phonemic awareness, of print must also give credence to the alphabetic principle, fluency, concepts about evidence supporting the use of particular print, vocabulary development, and technologies used by teachers with young comprehension (. Collectively, these skills children (Campbell, Milbourne, Dugan, &
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 45 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Wilcox, 2006; Dunst, Trivette, & Cutspec, Symbol Usage in Emergent Literacy Classroom 2002; Justice & Pullen, 2003; Lankshear & Practices Knobel, 2003; Odom et al., 2005; Parette, Peterson-Karlan, Wojcik, & Bardi, 2007). Graphic symbols such as those in That is, the question must be asked, “Does Boardmaker™ (Mayer-Johnson, 2006) are the technology tool have an impact on frequently used in early childhood education children’s acquisition of targeted emergent settings in tandem with strategies for teaching literacy skills that are important for later emergent literacy skills (Antonius & Zeijdel, reading success?” 2007; Giovanetti, 2006; Spencer, 2002). Work conducted in the field regarding the use of Admittedly, technology applications for symbols has focused primarily on an analysis typical, ‘at-risk’ young children, and those of symbol learnability and complexity (Fuller with disabilities, have drawn increasing & Lloyd, 1987; Soto, Cassidy, & Madanat, attention from professionals world-wide 1996). Essentially, a symbol is something (Casey, 2000; Jewitt, 2006; Loveless & Dore, “that stands for or represents something else” 2002; Mistrett, 2004; Mistrett, Lane, & (Vanderheiden & Yoder, 1986, p. 15). The Ruffino, 2005; Siraj-Blatchford, 2004). Such something else is the symbol’s ‘referent.’ Early applications hold great potential to facilitate work examining symbols and their referents the development of an array of developmental has suggested a continuum of symbols that skills, particularly in the area of emergent range from transparent (i.e., easily guessed in literacy (Anderson et al., 2008; Bowes & the absence of a referent) to translucent (i.e., Wepner, 2004; Casey, 2000; Hutinger, Bell, the referent’s meaning may or may not be Daytner, & Johanson, 2006; Karchmer et al., obvious but the relationship can be perceived 2003; Siraj-Blatchford & Whitebread, 2003). once the meaning is provided) to opaque (i.e., Specific technology applications have been no relationship is evident even when the developed, marketed, and routinely used in symbol’s meaning is known; Fuller & Lloyd; preschool settings both in the U.S. and abroad Lloyd, Fuller, & Arvidson, 1997; Soto et al.; for supporting emergent literacy skill Schlosser, 1997a, b). Picture Communication development (e.g., Boardmaker™ with Symbols (PCS) found in Boardmaker™ Speaking Dynamically Pro®; Judge, 2006; (Antonius & Zeijdel, 2007; de Graft-Hanson, Karemaker, Pitchford, & O’Malley, 2008; 2006; Judge, 2006) have been found to be Parette, Watts, & Stoner, 2005-2007), though easily learned when transparent or translucent little is known about the effectiveness of such relationships between symbol and referent tools to mediate children’s emergent literacy exist (Fuller & Lloyd; Mizuko, 1987; Soto et learning. Typically, these tools require al.). These symbols are a set of color and multimodal involvement of the learner (i.e., black and white drawings developed by images, color, and other elements are often Mayer-Johnson, LLC for use in augmentative presented in tandem with text; Jewitt, 2006), and alternative communication (AAC) and education professionals currently have systems (Mayer-Johnson, 2008). limited understanding of how the learning of emergent literacy skills (e.g., word recognition) Sight Word Reading and Technology Applications is affected by the current presence and use of technologies in young children’s daily lives. Of particular importance in developing early reading foundation skills is the development of ‘sight word’ reading competencies. Reading sight words is necessary for young children’s independence, safety, and more mature
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 46 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 reading experiences as they grow older and Saunders & Solman, 1984; Singh & Solman, progress in the public school curriculum 1990). (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, & Tarver, 2004; Ehri, 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000; Such findings are interesting, however, when Rivera, Koorland, & Fueyo, 2002). Browder we recognize that most young children are and D’Huyvetters (1988) defined sight word immersed in interactions with technology reading as a discrete, observable response that every day that present multimodal learning is controlled by a printed stimulus. Sight opportunities (e.g., large screen televisions and words are lists of words that (a) are programming that is language-based; recognized without mediation or phonetic computer programs available in home analysis (Browder & Lalli, 1991); (b) can be settings; play with electronic toys and games; read from memory; and (c) include not only Bowman & Beyer, 1994; Jewitt, 2006; high-frequency words but any words that can Loveless & Dore, 2002). This is sometimes be “read from memory” (Ehri, p. 169). true with Boardmaker™ when learning activities are designed for presentation on Early work by Samuels (1967) suggested that computer screens or projected onto large in teaching sight words to beginning readers, screens using LCD projectors (Blum, Watts, less efficient learning occurs when a new & Parette, 2008; Parette, Blum, Boeckmann, word to be learned is accompanied by related & Watts, in press; Parette, Hourcade, pictures. Samuels argued that this could be Boeckmann, & Blum, in press). Thus, another detrimental to learning new words since the perspective to understand how children learn child would depend on the extra cues to sight words is that learning is enhanced when anticipate an unknown word. Thus, as Hill pictures, such as those provided using (1995) noted, appropriate responses to the Boardmaker™, are paired with words to be graphic features of the word might not be learned (Goodman, 1965). Using this acquired, or ‘blocked’ (Didden, Prinsen, & reasoning, Denberg (1976-1977) commented, Sigafoos, 2000; Fossett & Mirenda, 2006) and incorrect responses may occur, particularly if pictures are introduced, not to the child depends on the ‘extra cues’ to supplant print but to provide one anticipate the unknown word. additional source of information from which the beginner can sample as he Singer, Samuels, and Spiroff (1973) compared reads. Increasing the amount of three procedures for introducing new words, available information through the including words (a) in isolation; (b) in medium of pictures is shown to have a sentences (context); and (c) with pictures. strong facilitative effect on word Typically comparing two groups--one in identification in context and a smaller, which a picture appeared with each word and though significant, facilitative effect one without pictures--the investigators found on word learning. (p. 176) that context and picture cues slowed acquisition of new word acquisition. When Limited support for this position has been pictures accompanied the words, students reported in the professional literature (Elman, required longer to reach criterion and made 1973; Montare, Elman, & Cohen, 1978). more errors than when pictures were not present. Later reports confirmed these Hill (1995) recommends that Samuel’s (1967) findings (Center for Literacy and Disability theory appears to be preferable as a model for Studies, n.d.; Fossett & Mirenda, 2006; teaching non-readers of normal ability new words. In comparing typical children to those
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 47 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 with Down syndrome and learning disabilities, markedly by the kind of image that is used. A sight vocabulary was observed to be learned review of studies examining type of image most efficiently by all participants when the usage (i.e., decorative or conceptually target word was presented in isolation (Hill). relevant) reported that ‘decorative Similar findings have been reported in studies illustrations’ were found to lead to the conducted with children with disabilities to smallest improvements and sometimes teach sight words (Burns, 2007; Conley, negative effects in learning (Levin, Anglin, & Derby, Roberts-Gwinn, Weber, & Carney, 1987). Such ‘decorative’ illustrations McLaughlin, 2004; Didden, de Graaff, are found in frequently used technology Nelemans, & Vooren, 2006; Fossett & applications such as Boardmaker™ with Mirenda, 2006). Speaking Dynamically Pro® (Duffie & McGinn, 2005) which may be used to teach Dolch sight words in the preschool classroom. For sight words. young children identified as being ‘at-risk,’ teaching sight word recognition may require Since classrooms across the country often use explicit skill instruction on the part of technologies such as Boardmaker™ with education professionals (Ehri, 2005; Lee & Speaking Dynamically Pro® to develop Vail, 2005; Stahl, McKena, & Pagnucco, classroom instructional materials and teach 1994). Boardmaker™ can be used to develop emergent literacy skills (Antonius & Zeijdel, materials used for the teaching of sight words. 2007; Judge, 2006), it begs the following The National Reading Panel (2000) has research questions: recommended that vocabulary “be taught both directly and indirectly” and that 1. What is the impact of use of PCS “dependence on a single vocabulary found in Boardmaker™ on sight word instruction method will not result in optimal recognition by young children ‘at risk’? learning” (p. 14). Even more importantly, the 2. Will providing the written word and a National Reading Panel observed that there PCS of a sight word compared to was a paucity of research regarding effective providing only the written word instructional methods for vocabulary increase children identifications of a instruction and subsequent measurement of set of sight words? vocabulary growth. Method The most frequently used list to teach sight words is the Dolch List (Dolch, 1936; Rivera Participants et al., 2002). The original Dolch list contained 220 words and if one can read all of those Children participating in the study were from words, one can read at a third grade level a Midwestern city, were aged 4-5 years, and (Dolch, 1948). These vocabulary words attended seven different preschool classrooms continue to be prevalent in curricula materials for children ‘at risk.’ Children were identified used in early childhood education settings as being at risk based on a three-pronged nationally (Rivera et al.; Squidoo, LLC, 2008), process including administrations of (a) the and are often paired with pictures when Developmental Indicators for Assessment for teaching young children, both with and Learning-3 (DIAL-3; Mardell-Czudnowski & without disabilities. However, there is a Goldenberg, 1998); (b) the Preschool recurring finding of a lack of consistent Phonological Screening section of the positive effects of images on learning Hodson Assessment of Phonological (Answers.com, 2007), which is influenced Patterns-3 (HAPP-3; Hodson, 2004); and (c) a
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 48 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 1 Participant Assessment Data
Gender Group n n ROWPVT EOWPVT Male Female Avg Standard Score Avg Standard Score Control 4 4 98 94
Intervention 19 7 96 90 screening checklist that is a composite of As part of the larger MDAT project, all common risk factors (i.e., exposure to drugs participants had completed the Expressive or alcohol during pregnancy, premature birth, One Word Picture Vocabulary Test violence in the home, frequent (EOWPVT; Academic Therapy Publiscations, hospitalizations, low income family, and other 2000a), and the Receptive One Word Picture factors). Children identified as being at risk Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT; Academic performed at least one standard deviation Therapy Publications, 2000b). Participants’ below the norm in two domains of the DIAL- demographic information and assessment data 3, or satisfied any two of the following are provided in Table 1. Children were criteria: (a) score of one standard deviation randomly assigned to either a control (n = 8) below the norm in a domain on the DIAL-3; or intervention (n = 23) group. EOWPVT (b) exhibit at least four risk factors on the and ROWPVT assessments indicated that screening checklist; or (c) perform one control and intervention groups had similar standard deviation below the norm on the expressive and receptive vocabulary ability at Preschool Phonological Screening of the the beginning of the study. HAPP-3. All students were participating in the Making A Difference Using Assistive Setting and Materials Technology (MDAT) project, a three-year grant funded by the Illinois Children’s All assessments and training sessions were Healthcare Foundation (Parette, Watts, & conducted in a quiet place outside of the Stoner, 2005-2007). This project provided AT classroom. Since the participants ranged in toolkits (Edyburn, 2000) to 10 classrooms to age from 4 to 5 years, 10 pre-primer and 10 help develop children’s emergent literacy primer Dolch words were selected to be skills, though project activities did not presented to the participants during each specifically focus on teaching the children session. See Table 2 for the complete list of sight words. The toolkit contained a (a) the 20 words. Dell™ personal computer and keyboard, (b) microphone, (c) scanner, (d) digital camera, Two sets of stimuli cards were developed for and (e) ceiling-mounted projection system presentation to the participants. One set with Bluetooth keyboard and wireless mouse. consisted of the printed Dolch word, in 12- Software included in the AT toolkit included point font, on a 2 x 2 in laminated card. The Office 2003 (Microsoft®, 2003); Intellitools® other set consisted of the printed Dolch word, Classroom Suite (Cambium Learning in 12-point font, with a corresponding picture Technologies, 2006); Boardmaker™ with created from Boardmaker™. Pictures were Speaking Dynamically Pro® (Mayer-Johnson, chosen from the picture communication 2006); Writing with Symbols 2000 (Widget (PCS) symbols generated by Boardmaker™ Software ltd., 2007); and Clicker® 5 (Crick based on ‘concreteness’ of the symbol. The Software, 2007). control group played games that used only the
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 49 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 2 Percentage of Correctly Read Words Across Assessments
Intervention Control
Word % % Mid % Post- % Post- % % Mid % % Post- Baseline Word Picture Baseline Post- Picture Word A 30.4 68.4 65 70 37.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 He 0 0 0 56.5 12.5 25 25 42.9 His 0 5.2 0 30.4 0 25 0 0 I 39.1 42.1 60 65.2 12.5 100 87.5 100 In 0 5.2 0 43.5 25 12.5 25 57.1 On 0 0 10 43.5 0 12.5 12.5 14.3 Said 4.3 10.5 5 47.8 0 0 25 28.6 She 0 0 20 65.2 12.5 12.5 12.5 85.7 They 0 0 0 69.6 0 0 0 14.3 You 0 5.2 15 73.9 0 25 25 42.9 To 0 0 5 52.5 12.5 12.5 37.5 28.6 And 4.3 5.2 0 35 12.5 12.5 12.5 28.6 But 4.3 5.2 35 91.3 0 0 25 57.1 For 0 0 5 78.3 12.5 12.5 12.5 42.9 Had 0 0 0 43.5 0 0 0 71.4 It 4.3 0 0 35 0 0 0 14.3 Of 4.3 0 5 21.7 0 12.5 0 14.3 That 0 0 0 17.4 0 0 12.5 14.3 The 0 5.2 0 8.7 0 0 0 0 Was 4.3 5.2 5 21.7 0 12.5 12.5 14.3 Total 5 8.2 11.5 48.5 6.9 16.9 20.6 37.8 written words and the intervention groups targeted Dolch words. Four assessments were used the same games; however, in addition to conducted during the study for both the written word a corresponding picture intervention and control groups. In each created from Boardmaker™ was included. assessment children were asked, individually, Two games--Bingo and Shake, Drop, and Roll-- to read the 20 sight words. Each word was were played during the training sessions. typed on a separate 2 x 2 in laminated card. Sessions lasting 15 min were conducted twice The assessments were administered at (a) a week with each group. baseline; (b) mid intervention (i.e., two wks after beginning the study); (c) post assessment Experimental Design using the written word only with both groups (i.e., four wks after the beginning of the A quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control study); and (d) post assessment using the group pretest-posttest design was used written word and the corresponding picture (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Dependent (i.e., four wks after the beginning of the study) measures were correct oral reading of the with both groups. All assessments were audio- taped.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 50 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Procedure die. The clinician would then turn over the corresponding reading word and ask the Each control and intervention group was student to read the word. If the child could further divided into smaller groups of two or not read the word the clinician said the word three children. Six graduate student clinicians and asked the child to repeat. Before the next from the Department of Communication student’s turn the card would be replaced with Sciences and Disorders were trained in the another. This procedure continued until all 20 procedures and conducted all assessment and words had been read. intervention sessions twice a week. Supervision was provided by a certified Fidelity and Reliability speech and language pathologist who is also a faculty member in the Department of Special To ensure fidelity of treatment graduate Education. Intervention sessions consisted of students were trained on all procedures prior playing either Bingo or Shake, Roll, and Find to the beginning of the study. In addition, with the 20 targeted Dolch reading words. All graduate students checked each step of the reading words were used during each session. protocol (i.e., procedural checklist) as it was completed for integrity of procedures per Before each game, the clinician would read session; 100% of procedure steps were each card to the students and have each completed. In addition, 50% of all sessions student repeat the word. The games played across groups and graduate student clinicians during each training session were the same for were randomly chosen for fidelity of the entire week and then alternated the treatment checks. A faculty member from the following weeks. Bingo was played by Department of Special Education completed providing each small group with a Bingo card the procedural checklist and checked for that had either the word paired with picture agreements. Procedural fidelity across groups printed (intervention groups) or only the and clinicians was 97%. printed word (control groups). The clinician conducting the training session shook the Social Validation cards in a large plastic jar, allowed each student to select one, and asked the student to All students were interviewed at the end of read it. If the child could not read the word the study. Students in the control group were the clinician said the word and asked the child asked : (a) Did you like the games that we to repeat. The procedure continued until all played? (b) What did you like about them? (c) 20 Dolch words were read. Which one did you like the most? and (d) Do you think the games helped you to learn the Shake, Drop, and Roll was played by providing words on the cards? All but one student in the each small group with a game card that control group responded positively when consisted of one row of six spaces with asked if he or she liked the games and an corresponding die pictures and one row with equal number of students identified Bingo and blank spaces. The clinician randomly laid the Shake, Drop, and Roll as their favorites. When reading cards face down (with pictures for the asked if the games helped them learn the intervention groups and without pictures for words on the cards, all students responded the control groups) and the student rolled the ‘yes.’
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 51 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Figure 1. Percentage of correct words across treatment conditions. Students in the intervention group were student perspective that pictures assisted with asked: (a) Did you like the games that we reading the words. Regardless of the played? (b) What did you like about them? (c) condition (intervention or control), the Which one did you like the most? (d) Do you children were engaged in playing games with think the games helped you to learn the words the clinicians and appeared to enjoy their on the cards? (e) Did you like having pictures interactions. with the words? and (f) Did the pictures help you learn the words? Why? Responses to questions about social validity were audio-taped and hand written by the Twenty-two students in the intervention clinicians who were working with each group group reported liking the games and three of students; the audio-taped responses were stated they did not. Shake, Drop, and Roll transcribed by a graduate student not involved appeared to be the favorite game of the in the acquisition of the data and compared to intervention group, due primarily to the the hand-written transcripts of the clinicians. engagement of children in the task of rolling a Reliability was 100%. die. All but 2 students thought the games helped them learn the words and all but 1 Results student reported liking the pictures with the words. When asked if the pictures helped The number and percentage of correct them learn the words all but one student said responses (reading Dolch words) in each of ‘yes.’ One student comment, “because the the four assessments (baseline, mid pictures made me smarter,” illustrated the intervention, post intervention, and post
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 52 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 intervention with pictures) for each of the 20 About, Inc., 2007; Squidoo, LLC, 2008). To Dolch words is presented in Table 2. Figure 1 some extent it may also be that the gap presents the between evidence-based research and practice remains quite wide, and findings in the field percentage of correct answers across all Dolch continue to be ignored or poorly disseminated words. During baseline, children in the to practitioners (Peterson-Karlan & Parette, control group on average correctly read 6.9% 2007). of the words and children in the intervention group correctly read 5% of the words. In the However, this study offers further insight into mid intervention assessment the control the learning of sight words with a specific group read 16.9% and the intervention group population, i.e., young children identified as read 8.2% of the words. In the first post being ‘at risk.’ In this study, all children did assessment (only written words) the control learn during interactive games and reported group read 20.6% and the intervention group enjoyment with participation. The interactive read 11.5% of the words. In the final games used with these children who are at risk assessment (written word and its for academic and social-behavior difficulties corresponding picture) the control group read proved effective for learning sight words and 37.8% and intervention group read 48.5% of students in the current study learned quickly the words. Overall, the control group over a relatively short exposure time (i.e., four participants learned faster and read more wks). words in assessment 3 (post with only words). During assessment 4 (words + picture) the Additionally, in the last assessment (word and intervention group read more words correctly. picture) the intervention group performed better than the control group. This appears to Outcomes and Benefits indicate that the pictures did help the young children to identify and learn new words in a The finding that children in the control group relatively short period of time; however, the learned selected Dolch sight words faster results suggest that practicing sight words under similar conditions of activities and time with a picture and word might be best is consistent with previous literature beneficial when testing occurs with a picture investigating the influence of pictures when and word. Interestingly, all the children but learning sight words (Center for Literacy and one in the intervention group reported that Disability Studies, n.d.; Fossett & Mirenda, pictures helped them learn the sight words. It 2006; Saunders & Solman, 1984; Singer, is possible that the children became Samuels, & Spiroff, 1973; Singh & Solman, dependent on the pictures and therefore 1990). However, despite these findings, some identified more words correctly in the fourth research supports the practice of pairing sight assessment (i.e., word and picture) compared word learning with pictures (Arlin, Scott, & to the third assessment (i.e., word only). Webster, 1978; Elman, 1973). When working However, the intervention period was very with students who have disabilities, in short. In addition to the short period of particular, pictures do appear to support sight intervention, the limitations of this study word learning when used in conjunction with include the relatively small number of specific instructional strategies (Browder & participants, the unbalanced number of Lalli, 1991). It may be that this recognition participants in the control and intervention underpins ongoing classroom practices groups, and the absence of a fading phase for nationwide that reflect the use of pictures in the pictures. Future outcomes research should teaching sight words (cf. abcteach, 2001-2008; be conducted to determine if a fading phase
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 53 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 for the picture component would facilitate Acknowlegements learning. Alternatively, the question should be asked by early childhood education This article is supported through a grant from professionals, “Do we really want to fade the the Illinois Children’s Healthcare Foundation pictures at this point with this group of to the Special Education Assistive Technology children?” It may be that the next step is to (SEAT) Center at Illinois State University. teach these words in the context of a sentence and only at a later point fade the pictures. References More research in this area is needed. abcteach. (2001-2008). Dolch word cards. In discussing the implications of research Retrieved July 18, 2008, from involving students with disabilities, Browder http://abcteach.com/directory/basics/ab and Lalli (1991) observed that education c_activities/dolch_word_cards/ professionals should “consider simplicity, as About, Inc. (2007). Top nine ways to develop early well as effectiveness” (p. 226). Some early sight words at home. childhood teachers are ‘early adopters,’ i.e., Retrieved July 31, 2008, from they will embrace the use of technology early http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/i in their careers and utilize these important nfancyandearlychildhood/tp/earlysightwo learning support tools routinely in their rd.ht classrooms (Parette & Stoner, 2008). Other Academic Therapy Publications. (2000a). teachers will be ‘later adopters,’ i.e., they will Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. use technology less willingly, if at all (Parette Novato, CA: Author. & Stoner). Since studies have shown that sight Academic Therapy Publications. (2000b). word learning occurs both with and without Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. the use of pictures, and in light of the Novato, CA: Author. widespread development of technology Anderson, R. S., Grant, M. M., & Speck, B. applications marketed to early childhood W. (2008). Technology to teach literacy. A professionals and used in classrooms resource for K-8 teachers (2nd ed.). Upper nationwide, it remains important for early Saddle River, NJ: Pearson childhood professionals to continually Merrill/Prentice Hall. examine outcomes of their classroom Answers.com. (2007). Literacy: Learning from practices on the development of emergent multimedia sources [Electronic Version]. literacy skills among children. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://www.answers.com/topic/literacy- Also, as Flynn (1994) has observed, changes learning-from-multimedia-sources in general intelligence have occurred over Antonius, K., & Zeijdel, C. (2007). Supporting time, suggesting “the continuing capacity of active participation in literacy using the human brain to respond to increasing Boardmaker Plus. Closing the Gap, 25(5), novelty and complexity in the environment” 12-14. (Siraj-Blatchford & Whitebread, 2004, p. 18). Arlin, M., Scott, M., & Webster, J. (1978). The Given that children in today’s society are effects of pictures on rate of learning sight exposed to and use technology in very words: a critique of the focal attention different ways than in generations past, it is hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, especially critical that we continue to question 645-660. whether past knowledge about child learning Blum, C., Watts, E. H., & Parette, H. P. continues to hold true in the technology-rich (2008). Teaching phonological awareness to at world in which they live. risk preschool children: An initial evaluation of
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 54 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
outcomes for a Microsoft® PowerPoint TM- instruction (Research to Practice Brief). based curriculum with a LCD projection system. Chapel Hill, NC: Author. Manuscript submitted for publication. Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, Bowes, K. A., & Wepner, S. B. (2004). Issues New Zealand: Heinemann. in technology. Using assistive technology Conley, C. M., Derby, K., Roberts-Gwinn, M., for literacy development. Reading and Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T. (2004). Writing Quarterly, 20, 219-223. An analysis of initial acquisition and Bowman, B. T., & Beyer, E. R. maintenance of sight words following (1994).Thoughts on technology and early picture matching and copy, cover, and childhood education. In J. L. Wright & D. compare teaching methods. Journal of D. Shade (Eds.), Young children: Active Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 339-350. learners in a technological age. Washington, Crick Software. (2007). Clicker 5 [Computer DC: National Association for the software]. Westport, CT: Author. Education of Young Children. de Graft-Hanson, C. (2006). Supporting Browder, D. M., & D’Huyvetters, K. K. speech and language development with (1988). An evaluation of transfer of technology. Closing the Gap, 25(4), 9-10. stimulus control and of comprehension in Denberg, S. D. (1976-1977). The interaction sight word reading for children with of picture and print in reading instruction. mental retardation and emotional Reading Research Quarterly, 12, 176-189. disturbance. School Psychology Review, 17, Didden, R., de Graaff, S., Nelemans, M., & 331-342 Vooren, M. (2006). Teaching Sight Words Browder, D., & Lalli, J. (1991). Review of to Children With Moderate to Mild research on sight word instruction. Mental Retardation: Comparison Between Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, Instructional Procedures. American Journal 203–228. on Mental Retardation, 111, 357-365. Burns, M. K. (2007). Comparison of Didden, R., Prinsen, H., & Sigafoos, J. (2000). opportunities to respond within a drill The blocking effect of pictorial prompts model when rehearsing sight words with a on sight-word reading. Journal of Applied child with mental retardation. School Behavior Analysis, 33, 317-320. Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250-263. Dolch, E. W. (1936). A basic sight vocabulary. Cambium Learning Technologies. (2006). Elementary School Journal, 36, 456-460. Intellitools classroom suite [Computer Dolch, E. W. (1948). Problems in reading. software]. Petaluma, CA: Intellitools. Champaign, IL: Garrard Press. Campbell, P. H., Milbourne, S., Dugan, L. M., Duffie, P., & McGinn, M. (2005). Hooray for & Wilcox, M. J. (2006). A review of the USA: Integrating technology into the evidence on practices for teaching young curriculum. Closing The Gap, 24(1), 16-17. children to use assistive technology Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspec, P. A. devices. Topics in Early Childhood Special (2002). Toward an operational definition Education, 26(1), 3-13. of evidence-based practices. Centerscope, Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E., & 1(1), 1-10. Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Pearson. Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1-23. Casey, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Early literacy. The Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: empowerment of technology. Englewood, CO: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Greenwood Publishing Group. Studies of Reading, 9, 167-188. Center for Literacy and Disability Studies. Elman, E. (1973). The effect of pictures on the (n.d.). The use of pictures in early reading acquisition and retention of sight words.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 55 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Unpublished Master's thesis, Rutgers and write: Developmentally appropriate University, The State University of New practices for young children. The Reading Jersey, Camden. Teacher, 52, 193-216. Fossett, B., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Sight word Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning. reading in children with developmental A multimodal approach. New York: disabilities: A comparison of paired Routledge. associate and picture-to-text matching Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & instruction. Research in Developmental Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, problems with technology. A constructivist 411-429. approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Fuller, D. R., & Lloyd, L. L. (1987). A study Prentice Hall. of physical and semantic characteristics of Judge, S. (2006). Constructing an assistive a graphic symbol system as predictors of technology toolkit for young children: perceived complexity. Augmentative and Views from the field. Journal of Special Alternative Communication, 3, 26-35. Education Technology, 21(4), 17-24. Giovanetti, L. (2006). Literacy supports for Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003). children on the autism spectrum. Closing Promising interventions for promoting the Gap, 25(2), 1, 10-12. emergent literacy skills: Three evidence- Goodman, K. S. (1965). A linguistic study of based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood cues and miscues in reading. Elementary Special Education, 23(3), 99-113. English, 42, 639-643. Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S. M., & Kim, H. S. Hill, L. (1995). An exploratory study to (2000). The effects of other technologies investigate different methods for teaching on literacy and literacy learning. In M. H. sight vocabulary to people with learning Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & disabilities of differing aetiologies. Down R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research Syndrome Research and Practice, 3(1), 23-28. (Vol. III, pp. 771-787). Mahwah, NJ: Hodson, B. W. (2004). Hodson Assessment of Earlbaum. Phonological Patterns (3rd ed.). Greeville, SC: Karchmer, R. A., Mallette, M. H., & Leu, D. J. Super Duper® Publications. (2003). Early literacy in a digital age. Hutinger, P. L., Bell, C., Daytner, G., & Moving from a singular book literacy to Johanson, J. (2006). Establishing and the multiple literacies of networked maintaining an early childhood emergent information and communication literacy curriculum. Journal of Special technologies. In D. M. Barone & L. M. Education Technology, 21(4), 39-54. Morrow (Eds.), Literacy and young children. Illinois State Board of Education. (2004). Research-based practices (pp. 175-194). New Illinois prekindergarten program for children at York: Guilford. risk of academic failure FY 2003 Evaluation Karemaker, A., Pitchford, N. J., & O'Malley, report. Springfield, IL: Author. Retrieved C. (2008). Using whole-word multimedia July 31, 2008, from http://isbe.state.il.us/ software to support literacy acquisition: A research/pdfs/prek_evaluation.pdf comparison with traditional books. Illinois State Board of Education. (2007). Educational and Child Psychology, 25, 97- Fiscal year 2006 income eligibility guidelines. 118. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from Lee, Y., & Vail, C. O. (2005). Computer-based http://www.isbe.state.il.us/nutrition/pdf reading instruction for young children /income_guidelines_06.pdf with disabilities. Journal of Special Education International Reading Association and the Technology, 20, 5–18. National Association of Education for Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New Young Children. (1998). Learning to read technologies in early childhood research:
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 56 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
A review of research. Journal of Early 3, 129-136. Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 59-82. Montare, A., Elman, E., & Cohen, J. (1978). Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. Words and pictures: A test of Samuels' (1987). On empirically validating findings. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 9, functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. 269-285. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Psychology of Illustration (Vol. 1, pp. 51-86). children to read: An evidence-based assessment of New York: Springer. the scientific research literature on reading and its Lloyd, L. L., Fuller, D. R., & Arvidson, H. H. implications for reading instruction. (Eds.). (1997). Augmentative and alternative Retrieved October 8, 2007, from communication. A handbook of principles and http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/ practices. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. nrp/upload/smallbook_pdf.pdf Loveless, A., & Dore, B. (Eds.). (2002). ICT in Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (Eds.). the primary school. Buckingham, England: (2001). Handbook of early literacy research. Open University Press. New York: Guilford. Mardell-Czudnowski, C., & Goldenberg, D. S. Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., (1998). DIAL-3: Developmental Indicators for Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, the Assessment of Learning -Third Edition. K. R. (2005). Research in special Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance education: Scientific methods and Service. evidence-based practices. Exceptional Mayer-Johnson. (2006). Boardmaker® with Children, 71, 137-148. Speaking Dynamically Pro® [Computer Parette, H. P., Blum, C., Boeckmann, C., & software]. San Diego, CA: Author. Watts, E. H. (in press). Teaching word McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2006). Can recognition to young children using technology support emergent reading and Microsoft® PowerPoint™ coupled with writing? Directions for the future. In M. direct instruction. Early Childhood Education C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer Journal. & D. Reinking (Eds.), International Parette, H. P., Hourcade, J. J., Boeckmann, N. handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. M., & Blum, C. (in press). Using 369-377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Microsoft® PowerPoint™ to support Earlbaum Associates. emergent literacy skill development for Microsoft®. (2003). Office 2003 [Computer young children at-risk or who have software]. Redmond, WA: Author. disabilities. Early Childhood Education Mistrett, S. (2004). Assistive technology helps Journal. young children with disabilities participate Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Wojcik, in daily activities. Technology in Action, 1(4), B. W., & Bardi, N. (2007). Monitor that 1-9. progress! Monitor that progress! Mistrett, S. G., Lane, S. J., & Ruffino, A. G. Interpreting data trends for assistive (2005). Growing and learning through technology decision-making. Teaching technology: Birth to five. In D. Edyburn, Exceptional Children, 40(1), 22-29. K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook Parette, H. P., & Stoner, J. B. (2008). Benefits of special education technology research and of assistive technology user groups for practice (pp. 273-308). Whitefish Bay, WI: early childhood education professionals. Knowledge by Design. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 313- Mizuko, M. I. (1987). Transparency and ease 319. of learning symbols represented by Parette, H. P., Watts, E. M., & Stoner, J. Blissymbols, PCS, and Picsyms. (2005-2007). Making a difference using Augmentative and Alternative Communication, assistive technology (MDAT) project. Grant
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 57 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
funded by the Illinois Children’s Press. Healthcare Foundation. Soto, G., Cassidy, M. J., & Madanat, S. M. Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Parette, H. P. (1996). Application of ordered probit (2007). Evidence-based practice and techniques to analyze ratings of consideration of assistive technology blissymbol complexity. Augmentative & effectiveness and outcomes. Assistive Alternative Communication, 12, 122-126. Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 4, 130-139. Spencer, L. G. (2002). Comparing the effectiveness Rivera, M. O., Koorland, M. A., & Fueyo, V. of static pictures vs. video modeling on teaching (2002). Pupil-made pictorial prompts and requesting skills to elementary children with fading for teaching sight words to a autism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, student with learning disabilities. Education Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. and Treatment of Children, 25, 197-207. Squidoo, LLC. (2008). Teaching the Dolch sight Samuels, S. J. (1967). Attentional processes in words. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from reading: The effects of pictures on the http://www.squidoo.com/dolch-sight- acquisition of reading responses. Journal of words Educational Psychology, 58, 337-342. Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. Saunders, R. J., & Solman, R. T. (1984). The R. (1994). The effects of whole-language effect of pictures on the acquisition of a instruction: An update and a reappraisal. small vocabulary of similar sight-words. Educational Psychologist, 29, 175-185. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, Stephen, C., & Plowman, L. (2003). 265-275. Information and communication Schlosser, R. W. (1997a). Nomenclature and technologies in pre-school settings: A category levels in graphic AAC symbols. review of the literature. International Journal Part I: Is a flower a flower a flower? of Early Years Education, 11, 223-234. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent 13, 4-13. literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Schlosser, R. W. (1997b). Nomenclature and Ablex. category levels in graphic AAC symbols. Turbill, J., & Murray, J. (2006). Early literacy Part II: Role of similarity in and new technologies in Australian categorization. Augmentative and Alternative schools: Policy, research, and practice. In Communication, 13, 14-19. M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Singer, H., Samuels, S. J., & Spiroff, J. (1973). Kieffer & D. Reinking (Eds.), International The effects of pictures and contextual handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. conditions on learning responses to 93-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence printed words. Reading Research Quarterly, 9, Earlbaum Associates. 555-567. Vanderheiden, G., & Yoder, D. (1986). Singh, N. N., & Solman, R. T. (1990). A Overview. In S. Blackstone (Ed.), stimulus control analysis of the picture- Augmentative communication: An introduction word problem in children who are (pp. 1-28). Rockville, MD: American mentally retarded: The blocking effect. Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 525- Widget Software Ltd. (2007.). Writing with 532. Symbols 2000 [Computer software]. Solano Siraj-Blatchford, J. (Ed.). (2004). Developing new Beach, CA: Author. technologies for young children. London: Trentham Books. Siraj-Blatchford, J., & Whitebread, D. (2003). Supporting ICT in the early years. Buckingham, England: Open University
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 58 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Technology (AT) Reutilization (Reuse): What We Know Today
Joy Kniskern Carolyn P. Phillips Pass It On Center, Georgia Department of Labor
Thomas Patterson
Abstract: The history, scope, and evolving caregivers, and disability service organizations definitions of assistive technology reutilization often consider reutilized AT as an affordable, activities, from both grassroots and legislative and, for some, the only solution to perspective, are discussed. A national overcoming insurmountable financial barriers. classification system of AT reuse activities and From local grassroots efforts in the 1980s, data gathered from several national surveys of reutilization (hereafter referred to as reuse) AT reutilization programs using this has grown to become a nationally-recognized classification approach are presented. The response for providing AT to those people rationale, benefits, and potential perils of AT who would otherwise ‘go without.’ reuse are discussed from the viewpoint of suppliers, consumers, agencies, and One of the earliest known reuse organizations engaged in AT reutilization organizations, National Cristina Foundation, activities. Examples of both successful and was established in 1984 to put technologically damaging AT reutilization initiatives are cited obsolete but usable computers into the hands with cautionary recommendations to of people with disabilities (National Cristina organizations interested in establishing or Foundation, 2000-2008). Another nationally expanding AT reutilization initiatives. The renowned non-profit organization, Friends of role of the National Assistive Technology Disabled Adults & Children, Too (FODAC, Reutilization and Coordination Technical 2007), began in one person’s basement that Assistance Center (Pass It On Center) is was essentially a storage space for a few shared. The value and limitations of the wheelchairs. The organization has since current AT reuse data and outcomes are refurbished over 20,000 wheelchairs, 5,500 discussed and recommendations for future hospital beds and many other types of durable research on AT reutilization activities and medical equipment (DME) since 1986. outcomes are offered. Undoubtedly, there were many more local groups collecting and redistributing DME Keywords: Assistive technology through various organizations (e.g., Easter reutilization, Assistive technology reuse Seals, United Cerebral Palsy, and the Muscular Dystrophy Association) but there was no The Beginnings of Assistive Technology unifying voice around AT reuse at the time. Reutilization Legislative Catalyst for Expansion of AT The reutilization, or ‘reuse,’ of assistive Reuse Programs technology (AT) is a service born of need. In today’s world of increasing demand and In 1988, Congress passed the Technology- shrinking resources for AT, individuals with Related Assistance for Individuals with disabilities, their family members and Disabilities Act (Tech Act) to give states
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 59 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 funds a catalyst to develop creative strategies initiated or expanded existing reutilization to reduce AT access barriers. The Tech Act services to respond to these unmet consumer was the first federal legislation to define both needs. AT devices and services. The Tech Act of 1998 defines an AT device as “any item, piece Rapid innovation in electronics accelerated of equipment, or product system whether the replacement rate of technologies such as acquired commercially, modified, or computers and lead to a surplus of outdated, customized, that is used to increase, maintain, yet reusable, equipment (National Safety or improve functional capabilities of Council, 1999). This abundance of equipment individuals with disabilities” [§3(a)(3)] and unmet consumer needs for computer technology led to the proliferation of AT services are defined as “any service that computer refurbishing programs, often directly assists an individual with a disability in spurred on by the lively dialogue and technical the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive assistance of Yvette Marin, the Executive technology device” [§3(a)(4)] and the Director of the National Cristina Foundation, purposes of the act such as “purchasing, who sought to encourage donations of surplus leasing or otherwise providing for the computers from corporate partners for use by acquisition of assistive technology devices by people with disabilities (National Cristina people with disabilities” and “selecting, Foundation, 2000-2008). designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing The 1994 amendments to the Tech Act of assistive technology devices” [§3(a)(4)(B)], allowed states to develop model systems that set the stage for states to devise many creative would “support activities to increase access to, strategies one including AT reuse. and funding for, assistive technology” [§101(b)(1)]. Further, the 1994 Act set the Equipment exchange and ‘recycling’ services stage for inclusion of public and private sector began to flourish in the 1990’s and early collaboration around “development, 2000’s to address intractable systemic funding demonstration and dissemination of assistive barriers and the consumer-driven demand for technology devices, and the ongoing AT (National Assistive Technology Technical provision of information about new products Assistance Partnership, 2000). Some states to assist individuals with disabilities” established both print and electronic [§101b(11)(A)(B)]. equipment exchange services that allow sellers and buyers to exchange equipment; other In the 1998 reauthorization, reuse is identified states launched new programs or supported in the statute as a formal (though the expansion of existing programs for simple discretionary) activity. State AT Act Programs redistribution of usable AT; and still others could develop systems for the “maintenance incorporated refurbishing services to restore of information about, and recycling centers and repair equipment otherwise unusable. A for, the redistribution of assistive technology variety of program models emerged, all devices and services” [§101(b)(3)(A)(i)(I)(iii)]. focused primarily on addressing unmet needs With the Tech Act reauthorization in 2004, of persons with disabilities who, for many AT reutilization is specifically identified as a different reasons, were not obtaining AT quasi–mandatory activity [§4(e)(2)(B)] whether devices and services needed for living, the reuse activity was funded under AT Act working, learning or playing, inclusively or funds to the state or through other state or independently. In addition, many other non-federal funds[§4(f)(2)(B)(iv)]. The AT Act private, community-based organizations of 2004 allows the state to:
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 60 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
directly, or in collaboration with reassignment of reutilized AT by these public or private entities, carry out programs. This conference resulted in an assistive technology device programs informative monograph that included a first that provide for the exchange, repair, attempt at definitions used in recycling AT recycling, or other reutilization of equipment; identification of the benefits of assistive technology devices, which recycled AT for suppliers, students and may include redistribution through individuals with disabilities; descriptions of device sales, loans, rental or models for AT reutilization programs and the donations. [§4(e)(2)(B)] components of computer recycling programs; an overview of international AT recycling This evolution in the Act is significant efforts; and, a first attempt to clarify issues of because private entities such as manufacturers national importance pertaining to reutilized and suppliers are critical to the success of AT AT (National Assistive Technology Technical reuse programs. They offer standards and Assistance Partnership, 2000). This guidelines for the sanitization and repair of conference and monograph set the stage for specific types of equipment, can clarify when future policy and programmatic developments equipment or equipment parts are no longer in the emerging AT service delivery field and usable, and sometimes perform repairs or was a catalyst to move forward the notion of reuse services under fees-for-services promulgating safe, appropriate, and effective contracts. reutilization of AT as a ‘hidden resource’ to address intractable AT funding barriers. As more programs of this kind developed and expanded, the Rehabilitation Services AT Reuse: Finding Partners for Successful Practices Administration (RSA) launched its AT reuse initiative designed to promote safe, appropriate In May, 2000, the RESNA Technical and effective AT reuse described later in the Assistance Project and Tools for Life (2008) manuscript. Leading up to RSA’s initiative hosted the second national conference on AT were a number of early, national efforts reuse in Decatur, Georgia. More than 45 designed to bring together public, private and representatives of state AT programs, even international AT reutilizers, consumers, manufacturers, AT recycling organizations, manufacturers, and state AT programs to look and third-party organizations participated at operational strategies and issues which will (National Assistive Technology Technical be discussed in the next section. Assistance Partnership, 2000). This conference stressed the need for continuing Early National Efforts to Forge a Unified, conversations among existing and potential Collaborative Vision for AT Reuse partners, the need to identify best practices, costs and benefits, and the need to develop In March, 1999, the RESNA Technical sustainable AT reuse services that support Assistance Project and the Assistive consumers, manufacturer/suppliers, and Technology in New Hampshire program organizations involved in these initiatives. hosted the first national conference, Two reutilization programs in Georgia— ‘Discovering Hidden Resources: AT FODAC (2007) and the ReBoot computer Recycling, Refurbishing and Redistribution,’ reutilization program (Touch the Future, Inc., to (a) address emergent needs of AT reuse n.d.)--were toured to give participants a closer programs; (b) facilitate sharing of information; look at how successful reuse can enhance and (c) forge a vision of a national system that partnerships among suppliers, manufacturers would support procurement, distribution, and and end-users. The conference also
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 61 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 spotlighted how several reuse programs offer way to fulfill the intent of the law to increase job skills training, industry certification, and acquisition of assistive technology devices and employment as computer and durable medical services. equipment repair technicians to individuals with disabilities. Under a grant from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), the Early Definitions of Reused/Reutilized AT Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP) developed a reporting One issue that confounds research is protocol called the National Information nomenclature. Without clear definitions of the System for Assistive Technology (NISAT; types of AT reuse activities, definitive Association of Assistive Technology Act research is not possible. Early AT reuse Programs, n.d.) for states to use in collecting activities were often referred to as “recycling” the data required by the law and to provide a activities. The RESNA TA Project defined consistent national basis for reporting reused AT equipment as follows: “Recycled aggregate state AT Act data to Congress. The assistive technology equipment is any piece of reporting protocol approved by the Office of used equipment, device or aid, that is now Management and Budget allows states to capable of being reused by someone else,” estimate the original value of (NATTAP, 2000, p. 3) and clarified that the devices that are exchanged or recycling programs (e.g., in the late 1990s) refurbished/repaired/recycled, along with the interchangeably used terms such as amount spent to obtain the device. Programs “reutilization, refurbishing, or redistribution” may use the manufacturer’s suggested retail (NATTAP, p. 3) in program descriptions. price (MSRP) to determine the original value RESNA reported that, to manufacturers and of the device. If the exact price for that those involved in waste management, the particular item cannot be found, an attempt term ‘recycle’ refers to the breaking down of must be made to locate a comparable item the product for purposes of retrieving and and the price for that device must be used. reusing that which is usable in some manner Estimates may be used as an acceptable or form, or end-of-life reprocessing alternative when exact pricing information is (NATTAP; Environmental Protection not available (Association of Assistive Agency, 2008). More precise definitions of Technology Act Programs). reuse evolved to clarify and quantify specific reuse activities for the purpose of The NISAT instructional guide defined two understanding of some quantitative outcomes distinct types of AT reuse activities: from a national perspective. 1. Device exchange activities. These are Quantitative Reporting of Initial AT Reuse Data activities in which devices are listed in Using Expanded Definitions of AT Reuse a ‘want ad’ type posting and consumers can contact and arrange to The AT Act of 2004 increased accountability obtain the device (either by by requiring states to report data to measure purchasing it or obtaining it freely) “the number, type, estimated value, and scope from the current owner. Exchange of assistive technology devices exchanged, programs do not involve warehousing repaired, recycled, or reutilized (including inventory and do not include repair, redistributed through device sales, loans, sanitation, or refurbishing of used rentals, or donations) through the device devices. In some cases the statewide reutilization program” [§4(f)(2)(B)(iv)] as a AT program acts as an intermediary
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 62 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
during the exchange; in other cases reuse program (i.e., exchange program, the statewide AT program is not reassignment program, or long-term loan involved in the transaction. program). Devices for daily living were ranked 2. Device refurbishment/repair/recycling behind seating, positioning and wheeled activities. These are activities in which mobility and computer/computer related devices are accepted (usually by devices for exchange or reassignment donation) into an inventory, are programs. Recreation and leisure equipment repaired, sanitized, and/or refurbished was ranked behind seating, positioning, and as needed, and then are offered for wheeled mobility and computer/computer- sale, loan, rental or give away to related devices acquired under a long-term consumers as recycled products. loan. Altogether, the data collected from 24 Repair of devices for an individual state AT programs showed that 4,765 received (without the ownership of the device used devices (which meant many people changing hands) should be reported as received more than one device because the device recycling. Open-ended device collection was based upon the number of loans, in which the device borrower persons who received devices, not the number can keep the device for as long as it is of devices exchanged, reassigned, or on a needed, are a form of device reuse and long-term loan.). These consumers saved are reported as device recycling $5,014,921 (i.e., the cost savings estimated by (Association of Assistive Technology subtracting the cost of used devices from the Act Programs, n.d.). MSRP if purchased new; Buzzell, 2007).
Initial Quantitative Outcomes of AT Reuse Reported A Closer Examination of the RSA by State AT Act Programs Initiative on AT Reuse
Prior to completion and approval of the The need for affordable AT and the new NISAT data collection protocol, the ATAP requirements for state AT Act programs to (n.d.) developed an interim data collection address these needs, in part through reuse tool to capture data on AT Program activities. initiatives, resulted in a national conversation ATAP, which represents 54 of the 56 AT Act to better understand the opportunities and Programs, requested that its members challenges of AT Reuse. The RSA, the voluntarily submit data collected between NATTAP, and Tools for Life--Georgia’s state October 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006, AT Project--jointly hosted the third national using the interim voluntary data tool. Thirty- conference on AT reuse in May, 2006. This five states submitted data using the interim conference, the Pass It On Conference on AT data reporting tool. Of the 35 states Reuse, drew over 200 participants including submitting data, 24 reported operating reuse, individuals with disabilities, reuse exchange, or long-term loan programs or a organizations, state programs, suppliers and combination of programs. States reported manufacturers. This diverse group identified reuse of a total of 5,602 devices. Of these, 678 that AT reuse programs need to know more devices were exchanged, 4,482 devices were about best practices in a range of topics reassigned, and 442 devices were on long- including storage; transportation/distribution; term loan. Devices for seating, positioning staffing; volunteers; tracking and managing and wheeled mobility, and inventory; data collection; marketing and computer/computer-related devices public awareness; sustainability and funding; constituted two of the top three types of appropriate disposal of devices; finding and devices acquired through each category of retaining qualified staff; training staff and
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 63 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 volunteers; determining the acceptability of program). NATTAP compiled questionnaire devices (age, condition, type); matching data from 40 respondents (i.e., one person to device; providing training and respondent per state) who reported a total follow-up to consumers; standards for number 633 AT reuse programs. NATTAP cleaning and repairing; and liability and included four types of AT reuse programs in insurance. the questionnaire and respondents (i.e., state AT program personnel) reported on the Under the leadership of John Hager, Assistant number of programs operating in their state Secretary of the Office of Special Education Of 633 AT reuse programs, 111 (18%) were and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), RSA classified as AT exchange programs; 487 announced at the May, 2006, conference the (77%) were classified as AT recycling availability of funds for grants to establish programs; only 1 (<1%) program was model demonstrations of AT reuse, to classified as a reuse program other than an support technical assistance activities to these exchange or recycling program; and 34 (5%) grantees and others involved in AT reuse of the reuse programs were reported but not activities, and to address issues of national classified in the above categories and were importance to organizations involved in these classified as not sure. Respondents also activities. The goal of RSA’s reuse initiative is reported that durable medical equipment “to increase the availability of assistive devices are the most frequent type of devices technology through promoting and reutilized (64% of all devices reutilized by supporting the appropriate, effective reuse of these programs) and a significant majority of AT devices at the state and local level” respondents reported AT reuse programs (Buzzell, 2007, p. 3). The support of OSERS serve a specific geographic locality (Pass It On is manifested in the programs it administers-- Center, 2006). Respondents also reported on the 87 AT reuse programs operated by state the many types of organizations involved in AT Act programs and U.S. territories, 12 AT AT reuse: independent living centers, reuse demonstration grants, and one technical university medical centers, assistive assistance center on AT reuse (i.e., the Pass It technology resource centers, civic On Center). organizations such as Lions Clubs, and various groups like the Muscular Dystrophy National Efforts to Consider the Numbers Association. and Types of AT Reuse Programs State AT program staff completed the As a part of planning efforts for the Pass It questionnaire based upon their knowledge of On Conference, the NATTAP staff reuse initiatives in their respective state. The conducted the first nationwide effort to data represents the first national effort to identify the numbers and types of AT reuse collect initial information about the extent and initiatives. A questionnaire, developed and scope of AT reuse programs reuse activities disseminated via email to state AT Programs, and devices. This information along with was designed to gather initial information significant and diverse perspectives of over about the numbers and types of reuse 200 participants–representatives from AT programs, the types of organizations involved reuse programs, state AT Act programs, in reuse activities, the types of AT reutilized, manufacturers, suppliers, state agencies and and limitations with respect to the individuals with disabilities–who participated populations served by these programs (e.g., a at the Pass It On Conference, suggest policy specific age group, type of disability, type of implications to be addressed by decision- AT reutilized, or purpose of the AT reuse makers at many levels to assure that AT reuse
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 64 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 is safe, appropriate, cost-effective, and were listed in the database in 2007. In follow- sustainable. The data from the questionnaire up calls to state AT program respondents who is limited by its informality and by the fact reported significantly more reuse programs on that many state AT program respondents the questionnaire than on the database, were unable to categorize the specific limits of NATTAP learned that some respondents the populations served: of 633 reported AT included many small AT reuse initiatives on reuse programs, 283 could not be categorized the questionnaire; these initiatives would not by specific program limits (e.g., geographic be appropriate to list on the national, public area served, type of disability or ages served, database (J. Kniskern, personal etc.). Further, the results of the questionnaire communication, September 17, 2007). suggested a need for clearer definitions for various types of reuse activities through which Challenges of AT Reuse a more specific classification of the types of reuse programs could be accomplished. The RSA has defined ‘appropriate’ reuse as reuse that is “safe for reusers and meets the In a subsequent 2006 effort to gather more needs of consumers and reutilizers, results in specific and better-documented data, and to positive outcomes for consumers, and is provide a useful tool to help consumers, environmentally friendly” (Buzzell, 2007, p. families and providers locate reused AT, 17). ‘Effective reuse’ is that which “produces NATTAP established a public, on-line cost savings or is cost-neutral, is sustainable, database to locate and classify AT reuse and has a positive or neutral effect on the AT programs (Pass It On Center, 2007). field” (Buzzell, p. 21). In a presentation NATTAP asked state AT Act programs and entitled “Addressing the Challenges in the the organizations known to be engaged in AT Reuse of Assistive Technology” (Buzzell, reuse activities to populate this database 2006) to the Interagency Committee on which includes such information as how to Disability Research, RSA reported a lack of contact programs, the type of AT reuse research on AT reuse, with (a) only three activity or activities offered, the types of reports being found describing AT reuse devices reutilized, and types of disabilities programs at the time, and (b) no economic or served. A 2007 classification report of data methodological studies of device reuse collected on this site found that 154 AT reuse (Buzzell, 2006, 2007). programs had directly listed program information on the NATTAP site. Of these RSA further highlighted that the lack of programs, 60 reported that they refurbish AT research leaves no way to understand the (49 of which reuse mobility, seating and benefits of AT reuse in terms of such positioning devices); 45 reported that they variables as cost-savings to consumers, their reassign AT (39 of which reuse mobility, care givers and/or agencies, obtaining AT that seating and positioning devices); 26 reported would otherwise not be available, or that they operate an AT exchange program; improvements in clinical outcomes (Buzzell, and 11 reported that they operate all three 2006, 2007). If measures were developed to types of AT reuse programs (Pass It On determine the quality of a reuse program, Center). The aggregated data compiled from would such measures include quantitative data the database provides a more realistic picture (i.e, how many devices are reutilized, how of the numbers and scope of AT reuse efforts many people are served) or other program nationwide. Whereas NATTAP reported a efficiencies (Buzzell, 2006, 2007) such as the total of 633 AT reuse programs from the first wait time between a consumer’s request and questionnaire, only 154 AT reuse programs receipt of a device?
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 65 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Although there are many different models of nation in many communities (Buzzell, 2006, AT reuse programs (NATTAP, 2000), there 2007). Finally, as a cautionary note, the have been no comprehensive, systematic question was considered regarding steps that studies to (a) consider the advantages, can be taken by policy-makers, state agencies, challenges, and perils of one type of AT reuse and AT reutilizers to assure that the model over another; (b) document practices individuals with disabilities will have the most that lead to good outcomes; (c) identify how appropriate assistive technology and the to achieve cost savings; or (d) know how to choice of a new or reutilized device. build sustainable AT reuse programs. In 2006, there was no central repository of information Meeting the Challenges and Recommendations for to help AT reuse programs to mitigate risk, New Definitions of AT Reuse reduce potential liability, understand legal and regulatory issues of federal agencies (e.g., The National AT Reutilization and Occupational Safety and Health Coordination Technical Assistance Center Administration, Food and Drug (housed at the Pass It On Center) was Administration, Centers for Disease Control awarded a cooperative agreement from RSA and Prevention, and Environmental in October, 2006, to address the questions Protection Agency) with potential interests in and challenges presented by RSA. Because AT AT reuse (Buzzell, 2006, 2007). Further, there reuse activities involve a diverse audience of was scant information concerning the possible stakeholders, one of the first steps of the Pass collaboration between AT reuse programs and It On Center was to launch the National Task third-party payer agencies (e.g., independent Force (NTF) on AT Reuse to engage the living services, vocational rehabilitation expertise and perspectives of nationally programs, or Medicaid) and the potential known leaders and organizations in the field. benefits and/or perils of such possible The first priority identified by the NTF was to collaborations (Buzzell, 2006, 2007). clarify and expand the current definitions of AT reuse activities because definitions impact Given the numbers of public and private every other challenge presented for organizations engaged in AT reuse activities consideration--from legal and regulatory and the lack of information to inform matters to the analysis of benefits and decision-making about these various issues, outcomes of different models of AT reuse RSA posed the question: ‘How can these programs. organizations ensure compliance with any relevant federal and/or state regulations The NTF Study Group on the Classification applicable to AT reuse activities?’ (Buzzell, of AT Reuse Activities has adopted and is 2006, 2007). Other questions concerned how disseminating the following definitions for programs would know the useful life of AT; widespread adoption by reuse programs, state what the overall impact on manufacturers and AT programs, suppliers and others: suppliers is; and, how the expertise of this industry can be engaged in productive 1. Device exchange, in which organizations dialogue with AT reutilizers, consumers, facilitate the transfer of a device from third-party payer organizations, DME/AT a consumer who does not need the trade organizations, and environmental device to a consumer who could use organizations. This dialogue focused on the device – without the organization consideration of the benefits, outcomes, taking possession of the device at any perils, and successful practices of AT reuse, time. given that AT reuse is happening across the
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 66 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
2. Device reassignment, in which an diverse stakeholders, along with the benefits organization accepts devices from and disadvantages of such programs (Vincent, donors and stores them until they can 1999). Another early study compared reuse be given or sold to new owners. programs to consider their feasibility (Burke, 3. Device refurbishment, in which an 1997). It is beyond the scope of this article to organization takes the additional step analyze the methodologies of these studies. of repairing or restoring used devices However, these two studies, along with to original manufacturer specifications several other studies (J. Kniskern, personal before giving or selling the device to a communication, May 14, 2008) that includes a new owner. recently completed doctoral but not yet 4. Device remanufacturing, in which an published dissertation (Bean & Morgan, organization alters or enhances 2008), will contribute to the substantive devices before giving or selling the research needed on AT outcomes and device to a new owner. benefits to inform reuse practices. A few 5. Device recycling, in which an reuse programs are beginning to explore the organization accepts devices from outcomes (a) of using technology to donors and breaks the devices down streamline program operations; (b) of cost- into component pieces for recycling savings to consumers who acquire reutilized and disposal. AT; and (c) to consumers three months after having received AT. Additionally, the Pass It On Center will review the limited AT reuse outcome and cost One example of a program that is exploring savings data reported by state AT Act outcomes and benefits is FODAC which has Programs to RSA for the period October 1, refurbished and reassigned 20,000 wheelchairs 2006, through September 30, 2007, and will since 1986. In 2004, FODAC implemented an supplement this data with comparable data electronic database to track quantitative data from other AT reuse organizations that are on disabilities and the types of not funded under the AT Act or otherwise refurbished/reassigned equipment matched to supported by State AT Act Programs. prioritized customer requests. It includes Additional information about the work of the performance measures concerning why users Pass It On Center in identifying successful consider reusable AT (i.e., denial from practices, quality indicators, consumer-choice, Medicaid, Medicare, or economic situation) and pertinent regulatory information about and how they believe the AT they received AT reuse is available will benefit them (i.e., school, work, (http://www.passitoncenter.org). community-living, independence, or developmental progress/recreation). What We Know About AT Reuse Outcomes and Benefits Another example is Paraquad (2008), a community-based, university-affiliated AT A review of literature shows scant evidence of refurbishing and reassignment program which research on AT reuse outcomes and benefits. conducts three- to six-month follow-up An earlier Québec qualitative analysis of surveys to measure changes in functional interviews with consumers, suppliers, performance and inclusion in community professional service providers, and activities of persons pre-owned AT. A unique government administrators explored what aspect of Paraquad is its affiliation with the contributed to the development of successful clinical staff from the School of Occupational AT reuse policies, such as the involvement of Therapy at Washington University. This
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 67 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 partnership has resulted in pre-and post A newer tool from the ATOMS project allows service benefits and outcomes research studies researchers to gather user-specific information that can inform decisions about the potential (e.g., frequency of use, settings of use, benefits and pitfalls of AT reuse. perceptions of whether the device aids the user in reaching goals, satisfaction with A third program, the Kansas Equipment services, AT cost data, etc.) at intervals before Exchange, reports data such as the wait time and after receipt of AT (Sprigle & Harris, for ‘average stock of AT (Kansas Equipment 2004). An instrument like the ATOMS tool Exchange, 2003). The program can respond might be adaptable for the analysis of benefits to many requests immediately, but most and cost savings to customers of reuse applicants have a wait time of three months. services. However, even this instrument does The delays must be balanced against the not allow for the examination of certain reuse number of devices collected, refurbished and program efficiencies that impact users, or the reassigned (Equipment for Independence, sustainability of AT reuse programs and raises 2007) to respond to unmet needs for AT. numerous questions: What kinds of outcomes What else is there to learn from these are relevant to consider? The benefits to examples and what kinds of methodologies consumers in functional activities or receipt of would be appropriate to measure the devices they cannot otherwise obtain? The outcomes and benefits of AT reuse programs? advantages to agencies and third party-payers? Cost savings? Reduction of waste and The field of AT outcomes measurement is environmental pollutants? These are some of complex because of variations in the (a) types the questions that can be explored through of disabilities, (b) types of AT, (c) ages of future research. persons using AT, and (d) settings and context in which AT is used (Johnson, Gratz, A Need for Outcomes and Benefits Research on Rust, & Smith, 2007; Peterson-Karlan & Manufacturer and Supplier Relationships Parette, 2007). The measurement of AT reuse outcomes is even more complex because all of Research concerning the outcomes and the above variations apply as well as other benefits of AT reuse on manufacturers and variations in the types of AT reuse programs, suppliers is also needed. Some AT reuse the age of devices being reused, and the need programs have reported at meetings and to clarify what will yield the most useful conferences that they have carefully cultivated information about AT reuse services for strong and positive relationships with decision-makers. A review of literature on AT manufacturers and suppliers of AT. The outcomes and benefits cited by the Assistive suppliers can refer to reuse programs those Technology Outcomes Measurement customers who have no direct or third-party (ATOMS) project shows most of the focus of source of funding. In turn, the reuse programs research is on development and models of can provide back-up and interim AT solutions interventions (Smith, Seitz, & Rust, 2006). In while the customer waits for thirty-party payer comparison, the emerging field of reuse approvals (Hostak, 2007). Manufacturers and outcomes and benefits currently focuses on suppliers also can advise AT reuse programs such measures as helping persons with about technology that has been recalled, disabilities acquire AT they otherwise would banned, or has passed its useful life. They can not be able to access, cost-savings as a result assist programs in determining the useful life of the interventions, and the satisfaction of of complex AT (Hostak). In spite of these the individual with the reused AT. anecdotal reports, no research on the benefits and outcomes of AT reuse to manufacturers
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 68 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 and suppliers is evident from literature reuse of AT reuse are not a measurement searches (ATOMS, 2007; RESNA), and yet, states are required to collect, nor is it there is clearly a need for all stakeholders to voluntarily collected by most state AT Act collaborate in understanding mutually Programs. However, it may be useful data beneficial models of AT reuse (Hostak). concerning the outcomes and benefits of AT reuse. For example, other recycling industries A Need for Outcomes and Benefits Research on report data that shows significant ‘savings of Third-Party Payers Relationships energy use’ resulting from recycling of iron and steel (74%), recycled paper (64%) and Some state Medicaid agencies are considering recycled plastic (more than 80%) (Farzad, reused AT as a way to contain costs in 2008). Some AT reuse programs are capturing response to budget constraints and increasing preliminary environmental impact data: the demand (Hostak, 2007). Lessons learned from AT for Kansans Project and Kansas Health a New Jersey Medicaid reuse effort as well as Care Policy (Medicaid) received a Kansas from European countries (Hostak), suggest 2007 Pollution Prevention Award for keeping that third-party payers should offer reutilized 1,800 devices out of landfills (Kansas AT as an option--not a ‘pre-requisite’--to Department of Health and Environment, obtaining agency-purchased equipment. The 2007). Pass It On Center is examining the success of partnerships and practices in working with Summary and Recommendations third-party payers. The Kansas Equipment Exchange is one such example. The program The body of current data on AT reuse reports savings of two million dollars through outcomes is focused on quantitative, not its collaborative partnership with Kansas qualitative, research that indicates a Health Care Policy (Medicaid) and the compelling need for outcomes and benefits leadership of the University of Kansas. studies useful to inform the decision-making Kansas Medicaid spends 10 million dollars of policy makers, suppliers, manufacturers, each year on equipment, and approximately consumers and all stakeholders. Such research one-third of this equipment may be suitable is essential to inform the development of for reuse. The partnership includes strong successful reuse practices. Informed working relationships with AT suppliers who consumer choice in decisions about whether are paid for refurbishing and repair services to accept an appropriate reuse device or seek done by vendor-certified repair technicians. a new one is another area of need for The program deals primarily with durable research. Reuse programs and policy-makers medical equipment, but is now expanding its can also benefit for carefully planned research efforts to refurbish personal digital assistants of return-on-investment (ROI) studies and (PDAs), global positioning systems (GPS), potential benefits to consumers as measures and other types of AT (Kansas Equipment of changes in functional performance, Exchange, 2003). inclusion in major life activities, and consumer satisfaction ratings of the AT reuse services A Need for Outcomes and Benefits Research on the and the actual device. Environmental Impacts of AT Reuse Acknowledgement Finally, there is a need for more outcomes and benefits research to determine the This work is supported under a five-year environmental impact of AT reuse efforts. cooperative agreement awarded by the U.S. Environmental impact data resulting from the Department of Education, Office of Special
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 69 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Education and Rehabilitative Services Minnesota STAR Program, St. Paul, MN. (#H235V060016), and is administered by the Retrieved August 7, 2008, from Pass It On Center of the Georgia Department http://www.starprogram.state.mn.us/MN of Labor – Tools for Life. However, the %20Reuse%20Presentation.ppt. 3, 15, 21. contents of this publication do not necessarily Daly, L., Van Hook, B., Rahaman, A., represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Patterson, M., Marcus, J., & Chang, C. Department of Education, or the Georgia (2006). Recycling technology products: An Department of Labor, and the reader should overview of e-waste policy issues. Washington, not assume endorsements of this document DC: U.S. Department of Commerce by either entities. Equipment for Independence. (2007). Kansas equipment exchange. Retrieved References August 7, 2008, from http://passitoncenter.org/documents/KF Assistive Technology Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 3001 DA%20Mag%20Article.txt et seq. (2004) Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Association of Assistive Technology Act Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Retrieved May 24, Programs (n.d.) National information 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/ for assistive technology (NISAT). epawaste/conserve/rrr/index.htm Retrieved on August 9, 2008, from Friends of Disabled Adults and Children, http://www.ataporg.org/atap/nisat.php Too. (2007). Friends of disabled adults and Assistive Technology for Individuals with children, too. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from Disabilities Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq. http://www.fodac.org (2005) Hostak, R. (2007, Spring). Threat, opportunity Burke, C. E. (1997). A summary of assistive or obligation? NRRTS News, 2, 1, 21. technology equipment recycling: a Johnson, B. B., Gratz, E., Rust, K. L., & comparison and feasibility study. Technology Smith, R. O. (2007). Project technical report – and Disability, 7, 175-182. multiattribute utility theory summarizing a Buzzell, J. (2006, August). Addressing the methodology and an evolving instrument for AT challenges in the reuse of assistive technology. outcomes. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from: Presentation to the Interagency http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archiv Committee on Disability Research, e/technicalreports/fieldscans/tr-mau.html Washington, DC. Kansas Department of Health and Buzzell, J. (2007, November). Pass It On Center Environment. (2007). Congratulations to the overview. Audio conference presentation to 2007 Pollution Prevention Award Recipients. the National Assistive Technology Retrieved April 17, 2008, from Technical Assistance Partnership, http://www.kdheks.gov/sbcs/download/ Washington, D.C. p2_award_winners_2007.pdf Buzzell, J. (2007, May). Overview of the Kansas Equipment Exchange. (2003). Kansas rehabilitation services administration’s initiative equipment exchange. Retrieved on assistive technology reuse. PowerPoint August 9, 2008, from presentation to the National Task Force http://www.equipmentexchange.ku.edu/ on AT Reuse of the Pass It On Center, Morgan, K., & Bean, L. (2008, August). AT Atlanta,Georgia, 1. reutilization program outcomes. Presentation to Buzzell, J. (2007, July). Overview of the the Washington University School of rehabilitation services administration’s initiative Medicine, Program in Occupational on assistive technology reuse. Presentation to Therapy, St. Louis, MO. the AT Reuse Conference of the National Assistive Technology Technical Assistance Partnership. (1996).
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 70 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Exchange/recycling programs offer new life for at Retrieved April 17, 2008, devices. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.atia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm http://69.89.27.238/~resnaorg/taproject ?pageid=3428. /library/bulletins/sep98.html Smith, R. O., Seitz, J., Jansen, C. & Rust, K. National Assistive Technology Technical L. (2006). Project technical report – Models and Assistance Partnership (2000, April). taxonomies relating to assistive technology (FS7). Discovering hidden resources: Assistive Retrieved April 17, 2008, from: technology recycling, refurbishing, and http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archiv redistribution. Monograph of National e/technicalreports/fieldscans/fs7/tr-fs- Conference on Discovering Hidden Resources. taxonomiesmodels-resource.html Retrieved May 21, 2008, from Sprigle, S., & Harris, F. (2004). Technical report– http://69.89.27.238/~resnaorg/taproject comparison of cost outcome methods (Version /library/pubs/recycling/RMtoc.htm 1.0). Retrieved May 30, 2008, from: National Assistive Technology Technical http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archiv Assistance Partnership. (2006). NATTAP e/technicalreports/fieldscans/tr-cost.html reuse questionnaire results. [Data file]. Atlanta, Technology Related Assistance for Individuals GA: Pass It On Center/Tools for Life, with Disabilities Act Amendments, 29 Georgia Department of Labor. U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq. (1994) National Cristina Foundation. (2000-2008). Technology Related Assistance for Individuals Welcome to the National Cristina Foundation. with Disabilities Act Amendments, 29 Retrieved May 30, 2008, from U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq. (1998) http://www.cristina.org Tools for Life (2008). Tools for Life-Georgia’s National Information System for Assistive Assistive Technology Act Program. Retrieved Technology. (n.d.) National information August 10, 2008. system for assistive technology. Retrieved May Touch the Future, Inc. (n.d.). Get a computer 19, 2008, from http://www.ataporg.org/ ReBoot Services TM. Retrieved August 10, atap/nisat.php 2008, from National Safety Council. (1999). Electronic http://www.touchthefuture.us/reboot.ht product recovery and recycling baseline report: m Recycling of selected electronic products in the U. S. Department of Education. (2007). Reuse United States. Retrieved May 21, 2008, your AT-reuse of assistive technology makes from http://www.iaer.org/ common sense (2nd ed.) [Brochure]. communications/EPR2study.html Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved Paraquad. (2008, July 15) Assistive technology August 7, 2008, from reutilization program. Retrieved August 7, http://www.ed.gov/programs/atsg/at- 2008. from http://www.paraquad.org/ reuse.pdf Programs/Equipment/equipment.htm Vincent, C. (1999). Practices of recycling Pass It On Center. (2007). Find reuse locations. assistive technology in Québec. Canadian Retrieved August 8, 2008, from Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 229-239. http://passitoncenter.org/locations/Searc h.aspx Pass It On Center. (2007). National classification of AT reuse programs. Atlanta, GA: Author. Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Parette, H. P. (2007). Evidenced-based practice and the consideration of assistive technology, effectiveness and outcomes. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 4, 130-139.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 71 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Perspectives of Assistive Technology from Deaf Students at a Hearing University
Maribeth N. Lartz Julia B. Stoner Illinois State University
La-Juan Stout Valdosta State University
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to regarding terminology, the term ‘Deaf’ will be investigate the perspectives of Deaf students consistently used throughout the article. attending a large ‘hearing’ university regarding their use of assistive technology (AT). AT and Legislation Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine participants and The Individuals with Disabilities Education responses were videotaped and transcribed Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 from sign language to English. A collective supported the role of assistive technology case study approach was used to analyze the (AT) as an integral and necessary component data. Three primary categories concerning of education for all students with disabilities, perspectives of AT emerged from the mandating that AT be ‘considered’ for all qualitative analysis: (a) self-reported use of students when program plans are developed assistive technology and overall benefits, (b) for children with disabilities [20 U.S.C. 1401 § barriers to AT use, and (c) facilitators to AT 614(B)(v)]. Consequently, when a Deaf child use. Discussion centers on the struggle to enters the special education system at the age balance the triad of information that deaf of three years, his or her individual education students encounter in the university classroom program (IEP) must document that AT and offers recommendations to assist deaf services and devices have been considered students in ‘hearing’ classrooms at the and, if deemed necessary, a service plan for university level. implementation and delivery has been developed and will be implemented. Key Words: Assistive technology, Deaf students, Higher education, PowerPoint™ The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has placed emphasis on the Authors Note participation and success of all children--both with and without disabilities--in the academic The researchers have acknowledged that curriculum. Thus, with IDEIA and NCLB in participants in this study consider themselves place, it would appear that a solid foundation as part of a cultural group and refer to was in place for the Deaf child to receive AT themselves as ‘Deaf.’ We also recognize the services in the public schools from early American Psychological Association (APA; intervention through graduation from high 2001) guidelines regarding person first school. language. However, to be sensitive to the expressed preference of study participants However, research has indicated that little guidance has been provided regarding how
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 72
Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
AT is considered and how the process occurs Technology and Deaf Students: Instructional or for young children with disabilities (Mistreet, Assistive? Lane, & Ruffino, 2005). While it is beyond the scope of this study to delve into the history of The IDEIA defined AT devices as “any item, AT use with the Deaf, several studies have piece of equipment or product system, addressed this area of interest (e.g., whether acquired commercially or off the Mackowiak, 1989; Stinson, Stuckless, shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to Henderson, & Miller, 1988; Zazove et al., increase, maintain, or improve functional 2004). Conclusions from these studies indicate capabilities of individuals with disabilities” [20 that the use of AT is increasing in the Deaf U.S.C. 1401 § 602(1)]. At a hearing university, population and AT use is beginning at an early accommodations are required for Deaf age. Ideally, Deaf students will graduate from students to gain access to information that is the public schools with AT experiences that readily available to hearing students. We have prepared them for effective and acknowledge that technologies viewed as successful university careers. instructional for hearing students become assistive for the Deaf student. For example, if The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) a professor is lecturing and using an and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act instructional technology such as Microsoft® Amendments of 1973 continued the PowerPoint™, the Deaf student may rely legislative support for an increasing number heavily on the PowerPoint™ presentation to of individuals with disabilities to enter, learn, gain information not otherwise available to and graduate from institutions of higher him/her. When that occurs, the instructional education. Among those individuals with technology then becomes AT for that student disabilities are an ever increasing number of because it improves the Deaf student’s Deaf students and students with hearing loss. functional capabilities of receiving the Approximately 30,000 students in colleges and information. Another illustration would be if a universities across the U.S. are Deaf (Kolvitz, Deaf student were interacting with peers Billies, Wilcox, & Rawlinson, 2003) and attend during a class activity and using text ‘hearing universities.’ messaging to communicate with group members. The text messaging becomes AT The term hearing universities was initially coined because it allows the Deaf student to improve by Komersaroff (2005) to refer to universities his functional capability of communication, dominated by students who are hearing. In since his or her speech may be unintelligible these institutions, the hearing students to peers due to deafness. Therefore, for the experience equality that may not naturally be purposes of this paper and congruent with the assured or assumed by peer Deaf students. perspectives of our participants, we will refer Thus, IDEIA established the foundation for to AT as devices that our participants have Deaf students to receive AT services at a identified as improving their functional young age and the ADA and Section 504 capabilities and/or compensating for their support the legal right to access AT support at hearing loss. universities by providing equal access to materials. Yet research to date has neglected AT has been deemed as one of the “great to examine the perspectives of Deaf students equalizing forces in education and meaningful themselves at these institutions—the ones inclusion of students with disabilities both in who have directly benefited from legislation. terms of promoting access to the general curriculum and in facilitating the ability of students to demonstrate mastery of that
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 73 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 1 Demographics of Participants
Hearing Communication Name Loss/Age of Speech Intelligibility Mode/Language College Status Age Onset During Interview
Yvonne Severe to Intelligible Speech Undergrad/ Early 20s profound/ junior Birth
Ken Severe to Intelligible MCEa Undergrad/ Late 20s profound/ senior Before 1 yr
Henry Profound/ Intelligible ASLb Undergrad/ Early 20s 3 yrs junior
Tony Profound/ None ASL Undergrad/ Early 20s Birth sophomore
Keith Profound/ Limited MCE Undergrad/ Early 20s Before 2 yrs senior
Karl Profound/ None ASL Undergrad/ Early 20s Birth junior
Hayley Profound/ Intelligible Speech Undergrad/ Mid 20s Before 2 yrs junior
Jennifer Profound/ Intelligible Speech Graduate Mid 30s Birth
Botina Severe/ Intelligible Speech Undergrad/ Early 20s Progressive/ junior Before 2 yrs aMCE: Manully Coded English bASL: American Sign Language knowledge” (Michaels & McDermott, 2003, p. The Deaf student may not know or 29). AT has great potential to assist Deaf understand the various accommodations students at hearing universities. However, the available, understand the effectiveness of Deaf student at a hearing university must accommodations, or have the knowledge and assume significant responsibility for the skills to ask for the appropriate effective use of AT. While the ADA and accommodations that can vary across Section 504 delineate the responsibilities of students, the curriculum, and faculty who colleges and universities regarding the deliver instruction. Additionally, students are education of Deaf students, the Office of often not exposed to various potentially Civil Rights (OCR) has clearly stipulated that advantageous technologies at the high school it is the student’s responsibility to “notify the level and may be ignorant of technologies that school of their disability, request academic might be useful. adjustments, and provide any necessary evidence of a disability-related need for the Numerous research studies indicate that Deaf requested adjustment” (Milani, 1996, p. 995). students are using a range of technologies
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 74 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 with increased frequency and consistency, deeper understanding through more powerful such as the Internet and email (Bowe, 2002); descriptions and explanations. instant messaging ([IM]; Bowe, 2000); Real- Time Graphic Display ([RTGD]; Stinson et al, Participants 1988); captioning (Ward, Wang, Paul, & Loeterman, 2007); and Teletype-writer Convenience sampling was the method used ([TTY]; Power, Power, & Rehling, 2007). for obtaining participants. Participants were 1 Such studies support the basic assumptions of Hispanic and 8 Caucasian students who were the current investigation that: (a) use of AT is Deaf at a large, Midwestern hearing university. increasing, (b) use of AT is beginning at an Students were recruited by a faculty member early age, and (c) AT holds potential to in the Department of Special Education equalize the university student experience at and/or an undergraduate student who was hearing universities. Yet, there has been no also Deaf (See Table 1 for participant research that has examined the perspectives of demographics). Nine participants agreed to be Deaf students at a hearing university regarding interviewed and videotaped. their use of AT. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the perspectives of Setting Deaf students regarding their use of AT while attending a hearing university. Specifically, the The setting was a large, Midwestern hearing research questions that guided this study were: university with a hearing student population (a) What are the perspectives of students who of approximately 20,000 students and are Deaf at a hearing university regarding use approximately 27 Deaf students. The of AT? (b) What barriers to AT use at a university has an Office of Disability hearing university are identified by students Concerns (ODC) that provides services to who are Deaf? and (c) What facilitators of AT students with disabilities, including Deaf use at a hearing university are identified by students. These services are primarily focused students who are Deaf? on determining appropriate accommodations for participation in the university curriculum Method and how to access accommodations. All Deaf students must initiate contact with the ODC Qualitative methods were chosen for use in and coordinate interpreter services, class this study to allow researchers to thoroughly schedules, and any other accommodations, explore perspectives and gain insight into the such as note-takers, extended test time, or feelings, emotions, and thought processes of alternative test settings. Requests for copies of the participants (Creswell, 2002; Strauss & Microsoft® PowerPoint™ slides are made Corbin, 1998). This study used a collective directly to individual faculty. No participants case study, which investigates more than one mentioned the ODC in their interviews, yet all case to understand a phenomenon, participants who had interpreters did have population, or general condition (Stake, 2000). some contact with the ODC. Miles and Huberman (1994) stated that investigating a number of cases, as opposed to Interviews a single case, will lead to better comprehension and better theorizing. Interviews have been described as one of the Furthermore, collective case study allowed the most powerful ways to understand another’s researchers to examine processes and perspective (Fontana & Frey, 2000), and were outcomes across many cases and to develop a the primary form of data collection. The interview questions were developed to address
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 75 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 the research questions, and while each interviews were divided among the research question was asked during each interview, the team members, which consisted of two faculty interviewer was given discretion to ask members from the Department of Special additional questions to probe or clarify issues Education and two honors undergraduate that arose during the interview process when students. Each team member analyzed all needed. Interviews were conducted by the interviews. All four researchers then met primary researcher and the undergraduate frequently as a group to develop categories student. Interviews consisted of two parts: (a) based on their individual line-by-line coding. a written section which focused on obtaining Disagreements about categories were demographics, and (b) a face-to-face interview discussed, and categories were refined, that was videotaped [See Appendix A]. The expanded, and/or deleted as needed to reach face-to-face interview consisted of semi- concordance (Barbour). The constant structured interview questions. The mode of comparative method by which researchers communication during the interview was continually returned to the data for analysis determined by participant preference. The was used as an overall methodological interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes, framework (Charmaz, 2000). and occurred during the Fall semester. Communication modes and languages Confirmability included American Sign Language (ASL), Manually Coded English (MCE), spoken Several approaches were used to confirm the English, or any combination. The primary findings: triangulation, expert validation, researcher asked for clarification of responses respondent validation, and member checking. as needed during the interview. Triangulation is the process of corroborating evidence from different individuals, types of Each videotape was transcribed by the data, and different methods of data collection undergraduate student who was Deaf and a (Creswell, 2002). Nine different participant native signer. Four of the interviews were interviews were analyzed and common themes randomly chosen and transcribed by a hearing emerged across all participant interviews. The student who was a child of Deaf parents with findings were then organized in graphic native-like sign skills. This procedure was representation in the form of a concept map completed to assess reliability of the which is provided in Figure 1. transcriptions from sign language to written English and reliability was 98%. Any All interviews were read independently by an discrepancies between the transcribers were expert in the field of Deaf Education who has noted, and the two transcribers met and taught Deaf education and ASL, has native- reached consensus on discrepant words. For like signing skills, and has served as an ASL example, one transcriber translated a sign as interpreter. The expert validated the findings. ‘ongoing’ while the other transcriber Respondent validation was completed by translated the same sign as ‘continuous.’ reporting and requesting participant opinions of the findings. Member checking, the process Data Analysis of contacting participants and obtaining approval for the use of all their personal After completion of the interviews, the tapes quotes, was used to further confirm the were transcribed verbatim and the data were findings (Janesick, 2000). All participants analyzed using a line-by-line multiple coding confirmed the findings and gave their consent approach (Barbour, 2001). The nine for the use of personal quotes.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 76 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Figure 1. Themes of AT use by students who are Deaf at a hearing university. Findings spoke of preferences for certain AT. Across the university community one of the most Analysis of the data yielded three primary commonly used assistive technologies in categories concerning perspectives of AT: (a) classrooms was PowerPoint™, which self-reported use of AT and overall benefits, appeared to offer a comfort level for both (b) barriers to AT use, and (c) facilitators to student and professor. For the student who AT use. Within each of these categories was Deaf, however, PowerPoint™ was not a several subcategories emerged. The findings panacea and presented its own complications are organized by categories, and a discussion which are discussed under the section Barriers of the categories and the corresponding to Assistive Technology Use. subcategories is presented. Another type of AT that participants spoke of Self-Reported Use of AT and Overall Benefits frequently was the Sidekick®, a mobile communication device that allows the user to Students spoke of the AT they personally receive and send IM and email. This AT was used and the overall benefits of AT. used primarily for social purposes as Henry Numerous AT tools were mentioned by explained, participants (see Table 2). I pick up girls, meet girls. I use my There was a wide variety of AT use among Sidekick®, ask for their screen name. participants, yet, the use was not It’s kind of funny, different, my homogenous. Instead, individual students hearing friends have to ask for phone
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 77 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 2 Assistive Technology Used by Participants
Technology Description N Participants Using Technology Captel™ A telephone that displays real-time captions of 1 the current conversation. Cell Phones/ Pagers A long range, portable electronic device used 4 for mobile communication. Closed Captioning Commonly known as subtitles. As the video 5 plays, text captions are displayed that transcribe (although not always verbatim) speech and often other relevant sound. Computers A device capable of performing a series of 8 arithmetic or logical operations. E-mail Short for electronic mail. A method of 6 composing, sending, storing, and receiving messages over electronic communication systems. FM Systems Devices that transmit the teacher’s voice 6 directly to the student at a consistent level, ensuring that the teacher’s voice is heard above the level of background noise. Hearing Aids Device used in some forms of deafness to 8 amplify sound before it reaches the auditory organs. Instant Messenger A form of real-time communication between 5 two or more people based on typed text. The text is conveyed via computers connected over a network such as the Internet. Internet An association of computer networks with 6 common standards which enable messages to be sent from any host on one network to any host on any other. Interpreters A person who facilitates dialogue between 7 parties who use different languages. LCD Projectors A video projector for displaying video, 4 images, or computer data on a screen or other flat surface. It is the modern equivalent of the slide projector or overhead projector. Mallard™ A web-based system used for quizzing. 1 Overhead Projectors A display system that is used to display images 7 to an audience. PowerPoint™ A presentation program developed by 8 Microsoft® for its Microsoft Office computer system. Real Time Captioning Simultaneously converts the spoken word into 5 printed format using computer-aided translation, which appears on a large screen for anyone to view. Sidekick® A mobile communication device that allows 5 the user to receive and send IM and email.
numbers. Instead of using pen and Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 78 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Table 2. (Continued) Assistive Technology Used by Participants
Technology Description N Participants Using Technology SmartBoard™ A large, touch-controlled screen that works 1 with a projector and computer. The projector throws the computer’s desktop image onto the interactive whiteboard. Text Relay Text characters are carried over the same 2 Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) stream as voice. TTY A now largely obsolete electro-mechanical 5 typewriter which can be used to communicate typed messages from point to point. These teletypewriters are still in use by the deaf for typed communications over the telephone. TVs A widely used telecommunication system for 2 broadcasting and receiving moving pictures and sound over a distance. Video Relay A telecommunication service that allows deaf, 4 hard of hearing and speech-disabled individuals to communicate over the phone with hearing people in real-time, using a sign language interpreter. Videos The part of the television signal which carries 5 the picture information. Voice Recognition Software Software that converts a speech signal to a 1 sequence of words in the form of digital data by means of an algorithm implanted through the computer program. WebCT Computer software program used in many 7 colleges to access grades, assignments, and/or post messages.
paper, I just give them my Sidekick®. Participants appeared to have favorites within And, if it’s dark, I use the Sidekick®’s the AT domain. Some participants talked backlight. I use it to hook up with my positively about video relay systems, while friends, what’s going on tonight. others indicated negative feelings regarding them. Keith spoke positively about Other students reported using the Sidekick® communicating with faculty through TTY: during group work within the classroom to “When I started college, they didn’t have a communicate with hearing peers. Botina really good online relay system. Now they’ve stated, improved, that’s improved. With relay I can call my professors to talk about issues in the Well, for my hearing friends, I just use classroom.” the instant messenger and email. In class and also when I have a group Negative comments about relay systems meeting, you know if we can’t get an focused on technological problems, interpreter right away, we’ll just IM or operational capabilities of professors, and email back and forth. language concerns. Henry explained his concern about the level of language with relay
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 79 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 systems: “Before email, professors used a at the same time with other hearing relay system and that uses a really high level of people. It’s a lot easier and more language. You can miscommunicate easily, so efficient, like if [a professor] talk, and screw it.” Keith expressed concern about look at the overhead, and I can’t hear, understanding professors’ operational so I try to look at everything with an capabilities, or lack of, when operating the interpreter, it’s hard. It’s better now relay system: “Mostly, the only problem I with the overhead and technology, have is professors who do not know how to with the PowerPoint™ helps me do use the relay system, not technology. It’s not better. the professors’ fault.” Similarly, Keith described the benefit of using One of the benefits of AT use in the Mallard™: classrooms was identified as providing a concrete form of information. Auditory Well, sometimes professors do have information or signed information is transient. what they call the Mallard™ System, Written or visual information is non-transient, where I can read notes or take quizzes and participants spoke of the benefit of to help me understand things in class. having a non-transient form of information You log in with university ID, and during class lectures. All participants identified then you have for, whatever class, you PowerPoint™ presentations as the primary have like lessons where you take instructional technology professors used to quizzes, or email with professors, provide the visual information that assisted …with Mallard™, my old university hearing students. Once again, the Deaf didn’t use it, but now this one does. students perceived this commonly used So it helps me because I can take technology as assistive when it offered them quizzes many times on my own time, compensation for their lack of auditory input. not follow restricted time. Hayley exemplifies this when she spoke of the benefit of having visual information: “I AT was also identified as greatly increasing depend on reading a lot. When I read things it the communication between professor and makes more sense to me than when someone student. Very few students had professors is talking or signing. I’d rather just read.” that were fluent in sign language. Thus, their Similarly, Yvonne spoke of the benefit of primary means of communicating with the PowerPoint™: “It [PowerPoint™] helps with professors was technology, specifically in the guiding me with homework and assignments, form of email, IM, WebPages, and other lectures in class. It’s a guide for me to Internet services such as WebCT (a computer understand what the teacher is talking about.” software program used in many colleges to access grades purchased by Blackboard®; see Additionally, when visual information was http://www.blackboard.com/us/index.bbb) provided the participants spoke of less assignments, and/or post messages. Botina reliance on interpreters, a feeling of greater described how technology has affected independence, an increase in the ability to interactions with professors using technology: remember the information, and more time to “It’s [communication with faculty] improved a process the information. Karl spoke of using lot with PowerPoint™. And they are just technology and an interpreter: more knowledgeable. They know how to do the PowerPoint™ and they’re not scared of I get help from my interpreter, but if new technology. They communicate more, like, there is technology then I can see
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 80 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 and they’re willing to accommodate you Maybe the teachers talk, talk, talk, and more.” I think I’m the only one who can’t understand what the teacher is saying, Participants spoke of more communication but that’s not true. Hearing students between themselves and their professors have difficulties as well, and they when technology was utilized. Hayley would rather have PowerPoint™, described her interaction with faculty as, papers, hard copies, and overhead projectors, showing what the teacher’s Well, I think technology helps faculty talking about. I feel that teachers are and students communicate a lot easier. not only doing PowerPoint™ for Because I always bring PowerPoint™, students with needs, but everyone has with all the information, I feel that we needs. Especially, I’m sure the [students] look at information, when hearings. Same way. s/he’s talking. I feel like raising my hand and saying ‘I agree’ with that Additionally, participants spoke of how AT section point of discussion on the made them feel more included. AT use did presentation or I feel, ‘I disagree’ with not set them apart, but facilitated their that. I think it helps with inclusion into the classroom since all students communication [with faculty]. No were benefiting from the use of the communication barriers because of technology. Tony stated that, “The that [technology]. technology helps me become more comfortable with the classroom, with the Ken who describes himself as “a little behind teacher, with the students, and makes me in technology skills” illustrated the benefit of comfortable enough to speak for myself, email when communicating with faculty: share my opinion”. Hayley expressed similar views, When you talk with faculty without using email, say you’d have to go back It [technology] improves a lot for me. and forth to the building, go up, go Compared to high school where we down, oh you forgot to say didn’t have a lot of technology, and something, go back up to talk with the we didn’t use it all the time. But here, teacher again. With email, it’s right when you come to this university, you there. You can send, back, send, back. use it all the time. I’ve improved so Respond. That really helps a lot. For much, because I’m so visual, most of me. my information is from looking at PowerPoint™, looking at different One of the perspectives that emerged visuals. It’s helped me participate regarding overall AT use was that the use of more, communicate my opinions AT in the classroom does not benefit only the more. students with hearing loss. Participants recognized that the use of AT, such as In summary, participants reported a wide PowerPoint™, benefited the entire class. Ken variability of AT use and highly individualized addressed this issue: preferences for certain AT. PowerPoint™ was the most common form of AT used in the Well I feel that not only do the classroom, and the Sidekick® was the most teachers and technology support me, common form of AT for social purposes. but they support everyone else as well. Participants identified AT use as
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 81 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 overwhelmingly positive, assisting language interpreter was not interpreting all communication with professors and hearing the professor was saying. When this occurred peers, and facilitating inclusion into the participants became anxious that they were classroom and university community. missing important information. They However, difficulties with technology use did expressed concern that they could not stop emerge. and ask their interpreter because class was continuing to move, and if they halted their Barriers to AT Use interpreter, they were going to miss even more information. Barriers identified by the participants that impeded their use of AT had little to do with Jennifer described her frustration with the functioning of technology. Rather, coordinating technology, specifically identified barriers were either interactions PowerPoint™, during class: with sign language interpreters and technology or difficulties coordinating information from Well, I find PowerPoint™ a little the professor, the interpreter, and the AT. All annoying for me. I don’t like it this information formed a complex triad, because it is hard to watch the during class, which required skill to interpreter and then look at the coordinate, energy to process, and PowerPoint™. When working with collaboration to use effectively. my interpreter, we have agreed that if it’s a paragraph on the PowerPoint™, Participants needed and readily acknowledged and the teacher is just reading, all she the benefit of having interpreters. Henry and has to do is point and tell me to read. Keith contended that they relied on I’m noticing, recently, what’s interpreters in class. Henry described his happening is that the interpreter is reliance on his interpreter, “I don’t really use telling me to read one sentence. She technology in classes. I’m an old school says, read it, then I’m waiting, but student; all I really need is my interpreter, oftentimes the speaker goes on. But although once in awhile if I forget to write technology isn’t always helpful. things down I will use my Sidekick®.” It Sometimes it causes more distractions should be noted that subsequent responses for me. reflected that Henry used email to communicate with professors and fellow Botina also expressed difficulties with students. He also reflected positively about PowerPoint™, “Sometimes I can’t see the PowerPoint™ use during class. Keith also interpreter and everything on the stated that he “used interpreters, but that’s PowerPoint™ [at the same time] so then the not really technology” in response to the teacher says it in a different way.” Students question about technology in the classroom. were frustrated at times by the presence of Keith also discussed the Mallard™ system, three types of stimuli coming at them at once: captioned movies, PowerPoint™, email, and signing by their interpreter, professor online relay systems to communicate with speaking, and visual information, usually in professors and peers. the form of PowerPoint™. Participants overwhelmingly reported that coordinating Other participants identified difficulties when this triad of information was a challenging interpreters intermittently failed to convey the feat. full content of what was happening in class. Participants reported knowing that the sign
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 82 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Facilitators of AT Use signing, and reading PowerPoint™ slides. Jennifer admitted that she has difficulties During participant interviews several themes coordinating this triad of information during emerged that were categorized as facilitators. class and needs to address this issue with her These facilitators were common among interpreter. “I need to let the interpreter participants, appeared to assist the student know,” Jennifer stated, “that if it’s just a with classroom performance, or assisted the sentence, then go ahead and sign it. But if it’s student with communication within the a paragraph, then give me enough time to classroom. It should be noted that not all read it.” Teamwork became a facilitator when students benefited from the facilitators to the students expressed their needs regarding the same degree. triad of information to their interpreters.
One of the facilitators, self-advocacy, was Botina contrasted her experience in high mentioned frequently as a behavior that school when teamwork was not facilitating students either engaged in or should be comprehension to her experience at the engaging in to increase competency and use of university where the technology appears to AT. Self-advocacy took various forms. Some have facilitated teamwork. students talked with their professors on the first day of class, informing them of their Well, like in high school they never disability and requesting the use of AT, such had handouts or PowerPoint™s, so I as PowerPoint™, that would aid them in would always be like lost because of comprehending lectures. One student, Ken, the group. And I’m like ‘Wait, I was reported giving the professor options as to looking at the interpreter’. And I don’t what specific accommodations would meet know what is going on in the group, his needs. and it was overwhelming. They were moving so right away and talking so I would go to the teacher and ask the fast, and the interpreter was just off, teacher if the teacher could adapt, and I miss. Now, with the develop PowerPoint™s, online work PowerPoint™ and the handouts, the that repeats what we’re going to group is more focused and helping me discuss. Maybe at the same time, I ask more, and it slows down the if there are any volunteers, student interpreter also. note-takers for me, document any information. Consequently, teamwork was identified as a facilitator when the student, professor, and Other students recognized the need to self- interpreter all understood the student’s advocate but talked about their reluctance to technological needs and the benefits, as well do so. Students who did self-advocate as the limitations of AT. reported positive results, as exemplified when a professor either switched to PowerPoint™ As described in the section of self-reported or gave the student hard copies of lecture AT use, students had a wide variance in the notes. types of AT they used and preferred. One student expressed her delight and fascination Another facilitator of technology use was with an interactive whiteboard technology, teamwork. This is especially important when specifically, the SmartBoard™. Hayley spoke the student was trying to coordinate a triad of of the benefit of using a Smartboard™ in one information: professor lecture, interpreter of her classes.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 83 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
I think it helps instructors to focus on AT applications (Zazove et al., 2004), and the subject. Focus on the presentation. substantial benefits of AT for a community It provides something you can use for that is Deaf (Weiserbs, 2000). Findings of this presentations. Teachers can add to the study confirmed these results with regard to discussions from the group and put it students who were Deaf at a hearing on the Smartboard™. It makes it university. easier for me to see what other people are saying. It’s very fluid. It helps However, one of the unique perspectives of things go nicely. AT that student participants emphasized was the use of AT for socialization purposes. This Hayley had the Smart Board™ available in is encouraging since research has suggested one of her classes and used it frequently for that students who are Deaf and students who class presentations, attending to and are hearing do not socialize well together comprehending class discussion, and (Antia & Kreimeyer, 1996). Technology, presenting her own work. She specifically though, may be a modality to connect mentioned that the SmartBoard™ helped her students who are Deaf with students who are express her opinions and participate in hearing. Weiserbs (2000) found that AT has a discussions. Obviously, she had to be aware positive influence on the relationship between of the AT, desire to learn about the students who are Deaf with their hearing technology, and successfully experience it to peers. In this study, many participants spoke benefit from it. Smartboard™ technology is of their use of the Sidekick® for sending not common at her university and is costly. emails and IM and for communicating in When she was given the opportunity to learn social settings. More generally, social and use this AT, she did not hesitate. One networking technologies are used by the does not know if she will have the hearing population for socialization purposes opportunity to continue to use this AT upon (e.g., MySpace® and Facebook©). Given that graduation, but she is aware of it and is now the hearing population has embraced such proficient in its use. technologies, the use of social networking tools by Deaf students would facilitate In summary, facilitators of technology socialization within the broader university included self-advocacy on the part of the community. participants; teamwork among professors, students, and interpreters; and the Using the same technology in the classroom opportunity to learn about new technologies. with all students was identified as a facilitator of inclusion for students who were Deaf. For Discussion example, the use of PowerPoint™ in the classroom provides students who are Deaf The discussion is organized by the three with an easily accessible AT tool that was used themes that emerged from the data analysis: by all. Students identified PowerPoint™ as self-reported use of AT and overall benefits, technology that allows them to focus on barriers to AT use, and facilitators of AT use. lectures and participate in the classroom, while also facilitating their inclusion in Self-Reported Use of AT and Overall Benefits activities. Inclusiveness is important for all students, yet students who are Deaf can have Literature focused on the use of AT by feelings of isolation in the classroom setting individuals who are Deaf has reflected both (Keating & Mirus, 2003). However, in this increased use (Bowe, 2002), a wide range of
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 84 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 study, use of PowerPoint™ gave participants Participant concerns about lack of familiarity a feeling of being included. with AT and infrequent usage is consistent with previous studies that focused on AT use In university classrooms, PowerPoint™ is a in the public schools (Derer, Polsgrove, & commonly used presentation technology. Reith, 1996; Lesar, 1998; Parette, 1997; Scott, Some colleges and universities actually require 1997). Previous literature has strongly instructors to use visual supports in the recommended involving faculty and students classroom (Hardin, 2007), and PowerPoint™ in the AT planning processes, whether for a should be viewed as a necessary single device or an entire AT program (Carey accommodation for many Deaf and hard of & Sale, 1994; Copley & Ziviani, 2004; Riemer- hearing students, while recognizing its Reiss & Wacker, 2000; Todis & Walker, benefits as a powerful instructional 1993). This recommendation is relevant to the technology for typical students. current study in that AT planning for a classroom or entire program needs to involve Barriers to Assistive Technology Use all stakeholders: faculty, students who are Deaf, technology specialists, and interpreters. Participants in the current study identified several barriers to AT use. Concerns included Literature concerning the relationship (a) difficulties coordinating the AT during between students who are Deaf and class; (b) inexperience with the AT itself; and interpreters also stresses teamwork (Luckner (c) the challenge of successfully managing the & Muir, 2001). Interpreters facilitate triad of information from the PowerPoint™, communication between students who are professor, and interpreter during class. Deaf and their hearing teachers and hearing Inefficiency of AT was also addressed peers (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001), and focusing primarily on older technologies, such interpreters play important roles in the as TTYs and telephone relays. success of students who are Deaf (Luckner & Muir). Therefore, professors are encouraged Apprehension regarding the efficiency of AT to be aware of the importance of the could be alleviated by providing a technology interpreter and the interpreter’s part in specialist who is trained in both maintenance his/her lecture. Lectures with PowerPoint™ and curricula integration of tools that slides are appealing to students, but when malfunction intermittently. Universities using slides in classes that have a student who typically have technology personnel available is Deaf with an interpreter, college professors for commonly used technologies (e.g., should be sensitive to the needs of students computers), but providing personnel who are who must watch the PowerPoint™ specifically trained in technologies used by presentation, the interpreter, and the college students who are Deaf will benefit both professor. Continuous feedback between students and faculty. Technical support student and professor is needed since the challenges are not unique to faculty and coordination of the triad of information is no students at hearing universities. Lack of small feat for the college student who is Deaf. support for AT at all educational levels has previously been documented as a barrier to Facilitators to Assistive Technology Use AT use (e.g., Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998; Carey & Sale, 1994; Copley & Ziviani, 2004; Identified facilitators were self-advocacy, the Riemer-Reiss & Wacker, 2000). use of the interpreter, and AT experience. Several participants explained their role as a self-advocate for technology use. Self-
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 85 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 advocacy is related to self-determination and Argüelles, Vaughn, Hughes, & Klingner, unfortunately data from the National 2005). Longitudinal Transition Study (Cameto, Marder, Wagner, & Cardoso, 2003) indicate Advocacy role models in the student’s family that too few people with disabilities become have been shown to be positive influences on self-sufficient citizens and do not fare nearly the development of self-advocacy (e.g., Grigal, as well as their nondisabled peers after Neubert, Moon, & Graham, 2003; Stoner, schooling (Chadsey & Shelden, 2002; deFur, Angell, House, & Goins 2006). Opportunities 2003; Nuehring & Sitlington, 2003). to self-advocate for specific uses of AT would Individuals who are Deaf are also in this benefit students who are Deaf when category. approaching faculty to request specific AT use. When students in this study self- Cawthon (2001) found that students who are advocated effectively with faculty, the benefit Deaf need to be taught how to self-advocate. was two-fold. Not only did the student get the Essentially, the goal of the educational needed AT, but the faculty member was able process is to teach all students to become self- to plan and provide for AT in the classroom. determined adults. However, educational systems often fail to educate students with Teamwork associated with AT is a vital and disabilities in the area of self-determination necessary component for effective use. Team (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001). Students who collaboration is widely acknowledged as best are Deaf must serve as their own advocates practice and mandated by IDEIA to most with both instructors and interpreters. effectively identify, secure, and implement AT Preferences regarding AT, access to instructor (Beigel, 2000; Downing, 2005; Lahm & notes, and coordination of the triad of Nickels, 1999; Locke & Mirenda, 1992). information should be explicitly expressed at Students who have completed high school both the beginning of the semester and and are enrolled at universities are not throughout. In addition, effective teamwork covered by the benefits of the IDEIA, but will be facilitated if the student who is Deaf may certainly take advantage of establishing also recognizes and expresses positive and working with a team of stakeholders who feedback. are willing to facilitate their academic success. Teams should include the student who is Little research has focused on self- Deaf, the interpreter in the classroom, the determination skills of college students who professor, the office of disability concerns, are Deaf at a hearing university; however, self- and the student’s advisor. If all these team determination must be present at some level members would consult and plan for effective or these students would not be receiving a AT use, the student as well as the faculty college education. Hopefully, at some point in would benefit. the educational experience, they have learned to self-advocate. Opportunities abound at the When PowerPoint™ presentations are used primary, middle, and secondary school levels by faculty in the classroom, the team should for students to engage and learn self- include the instructor, the student, and the determination skills such as self-advocacy. For interpreter. This seems to be especially example, student-led IEP meetings or important when the triad of information is student-led parent teacher conferences can coordinated. The team should discuss the use provide students with opportunities to learn of PowerPoint™ during the instructor’s and gain experience in self-advocacy lecture (read the slide verbatim or add beginning in the early grades (Boardman, information as students read); the interpreter’s
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 86 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 role (interpret the PowerPoint™ slide as Psychological Association (5th ed.). professor reads or just point directing the Washington, DC: Author. student to read); and the student’s self- Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (1996). advocacy (express when having difficulty with Social interactions and acceptance of deaf watching all three: interpreter, professor, and or hard-of-hearing children and their PowerPoint™). Decisions could be negotiated peers: A comparison of social-skills and according to individual preferences regarding familiarity-based interventions. Volta when to sign, how long to allow the student Review, 98, 157-180. to read slides without interruption, and how Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2001). The to inform the student that the instructor is role of interpreters in inclusive providing new information not on the slides. classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 146, 355-365. Limitations Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigor in qualitative research: A While this study utilized responsible case of the tail wagging the dog? British qualitative research methodologies, there are Medical Journal, 322, 1115-1118. several limitations that might influence the Beigel, A. R. (2000). Assistive technology validity of the findings. The first limitation of assessment: More than the device. this study is related to generalizability of the Intervention in School & Clinic, 35, 237-244. findings which is inherent in qualitative Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (1998). research. The findings are based only on the Augmentative and alternative communication: perspectives of nine Deaf students at a large Management of severe communication disorders in hearing university in one Midwestern state. A children and adults (2nd ed.). Baltimore: sample using more universities in a larger Brookes. geographic region would have enhanced the Boardman, A. G., Argüelles, M. E., Vaughn, generalizability of the findings. S., Hughes, M. T., & Klingner, J. (2005). Special education teachers' views of Similarly, since the study was conducted at research-based practices. Journal of Special only one university, Deaf students from other Education, 39, 168-180, universities may have different experiences Bowe, F. G. (2000). Broadband and Americans with AT. Similarly, faculty from other with disabilities. Silver Spring, MD: National universities may have had more or less Association of the Deaf. Retrieved experience with Deaf students, which could September 26, 2008, from have resulted in different outcomes related to http://www.newmilleniumresearchorg./di perceived barriers and facilitators to use of sability.pdf. AT in university classrooms. Therefore, Bowe, F. G. (2002). Deaf and hard of hearing caution must be exercised not to generalize Americans’ instant messaging and e-mail the experiences, perspectives, and responses use: A national survey. American Annals of of the participants to all Deaf students at the Deaf, 147(4), 6-10. hearing universities. Cameto, R., Marder, C., Wagner, M., & Cardoso, D. (2003). Youth employment. References In NTLS2 Data Report: Reports from the National Longitudinal Transition Study, 2(2). Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ Retrieved September 26, 2008, from 12101 et seq. (1990) http://www.ncset.org/publications/view American Psychological Association. (2001). desc.asp?id=1310 Publication manual of the American Carey, D. M., & Sale, P. (1994). Practical considerations in the use of technology to
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 87 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
facilitate the inclusion of students with the college classroom: Don’t forget the severe disabilities. Technology and Disability instructor. Teaching Psychology, 34(1), 53-57. 3, 77-86. Individuals with Disabilities Education Cawthon, S. W. (2001). Teaching strategies in Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et inclusive classrooms with deaf students. seq. (2004) Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, Janesick, V. (2000). The choreography of 212-225. qualitative research design. In N. K. Chadsey, J., & Shelden, D. (2002). Social life. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook In K. Storey, P. Bates, & D. Hunter of qualitative research (pp. 379-399). (Eds.), The road ahead: Transition to adult life Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. for persons with disabilities (pp. 137-156). St Keating, E., & Mirus, G. (2003). Examining Augustine, FL: Training Resource interactions across language modalities: Network. Deaf children and hearing peers at school. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Anthropology & Educational Quarterly, 34, Objectivist and constructivist methods. In 115-135. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Kolvitz, M., Billies, P., Wilcox, D., & Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509- Rawlinson, S. (2003, July). A showcase of 536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. services and resources for students who are deaf or Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the hard of hearing. Symposium conducted at use of assistive technology for children the meeting of the Ahead: Association on with multiple disabilities. Occupational Higher Education and Disability, Dallas, Therapy International, 11, 229-243. TX. Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Komesaroff, L. (2005). Category politics: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative Deaf students inclusion in the ‘hearing and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, university.’ International Journal of Inclusive NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Education, 9, 389-403. deFur, S. H. (2003). IEP transition planning: Lahm, E. A., & Nickels, B. L. (1999). From compliance to quality. Exceptionality, Assistive technology competencies for 11, 115-128. special educators. Teaching Exceptional Derer, K., Posgrove, L., & Reith, H. (1996). Children, 32(1), 56-64. Survey of assistive technology applications Lesar, S. (1998). Use of assistive technology in schools and recommendations for with young children with disabilities: practice. Journal of Special Education Current status and training needs. Journal Technology, 8, 62-80. of Early Intervention, 21, 146-159. Downing, J. (2005). Teaching communication skills Locke, P., & Mirenda, P. (1992). Roles and to children with severe disabilities, Baltimore: responsibilities of special education Brookes. teachers serving on teams delivering AAC Fontana, F., & Frey, J. (2000). The interview: services. Augmentative and Alternative From structured questions to negotiated Communication, 6, 38-49. text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln Luckner, J. L., & Muir, S. (2001). Successful (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. students who are deaf in general education 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 146, Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., & 435-446. Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for Mackowiak, K. (1989). Deaf college students students with disabilities: Views of parents and computers: The beneficial effect of and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70, 97- experience on attitudes. Journal of 112. Educational Technology Systems, 17, 219-229. Hardin, E. E. (2007). Presentation software in Michaels, C. A., & McDermott, J. (2003).
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 88 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assistive technology integration in special Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. education teacher preparation: Program Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook coordinators’ perceptions of current of qualitative research (pp. 435-454). attainment and importance. Journal of Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Special Education Technology, 18(3), 29-44. Stinson, M., Stuckless, E. R., Henderson, J., & Milani, A. A. (1996). Disabled students in Miller, L. (1988). Perceptions of hearing- higher education: Administrative and impaired college students toward real-time judicial enforcement of disability law. speech to print: RTGD and other Journal of College and University Law, 22, 989- educational support services. The Volta 1043. Review, 90, 339-348. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Stoner, J. B., Angell, M. E., House, J. J., & data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goins, K. (2006). Self-determination: Mistreet, S. G., Lane, S. J., & Ruffino, A. G. Hearing the voices of adults with physical (2005). Growing and learning through disabilities. Physical Disabilities: Education technology: Birth to five. In D. Edyburn, and Related Services, 41(2), 3-35. K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of of special education technology research and qualitative research: Techniques and procedures practice (pp. 273-307). Whitefish Bay, WI: for developing grounded theory. Thousand Knowledge by Design. Oaks, CA: Sage. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 Todis, B., & Walker, H. M. (1993). User et seq. (2001) perspectives on assistive technology in Nuehring, M. L., & Sitlington, P. L. (2003). educational settings. Focus on Exceptional Transition as a vehicle: Moving from high Children, 26(3), 1-16. school to an adult vocational service Ward, P., Wang, Y., Paul, P., & Loeterman, provider. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, M. (2007). Near-verbatim captioning 14, 23-35. versus edited captioning for students who Parette, H. (1997). Assistive technology are deaf or hard of hearing: A preliminary devices and services. Education and Training investigation of effects on comparison. in Mental Retardation and Developmental American Annals of the Deaf, 152, 20-28. Disabilities, 32, 267-280. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Power, D., Power, M. R., & Rehling, B. Self-determination and quality of life: (2007). German deaf people using text Implications for special education services communication: Short message service, and supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, TTY, relay services, fax, and e-mail. 33, 1-16. American Annals of the Deaf, 152, 291-301. Weiserbs, B. (2000). Social and academic Rehabilitation Act Amendments, 29 U.S.C. §§ integration using e-mail between children 701 et seq. (1973) with and without hearing impairments. Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R. (2000). Computers in the Schools, 16, 29-44. Factors associated with assistive Zazove, P., Meador, H. E., Derry, H. A., technology discontinuance among Gorenflo, D. W., Burdick, S. W., & individuals with disabilities. Journal of Saunders, E. W. (2004). Deaf persons and Rehabilitation, 66(3), 44-50. computer use. American Annals of the Deaf, Scott, S. B. (1997). Comparison of service 148, 376-384. delivery models influencing teachers’ use of assistive technology for students with severe disabilities. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 11(1), 61-74.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 89 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Appendix A
Interview Questionnaire for Deafed.net Research Project
Please answer as many questions as you can. You may skip questions you feel uncomfortable answering, or do not apply to you. Some questions may have several answers that apply to you. You are not limited to one choice.
Demographic Information
Please answer the following written questions. 1. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female 2. How old are you? a. 16-19 b. 20-29 c. 30-39 d. 40-49 e. 50+ 3. What is your nationality? a. Caucasian b. African American c. Hispanic d. Native American e. Asian f. Pacific Islander g. Other h. Not Available 4. What is your hearing status? a. Deaf b. Hard of Hearing c. Other 5. What is the cause of your hearing loss? a. Genetic b. Childhood disease c. Trauma d. Age-related e. Unknown f. Other 6. Check all of the answers that describe where you were educated from 3 years-to high school graduation. a. Residential School b. Self-Contained class with a deaf educator in a public school program c. Integrated/Mainstreamed into general/regular education classes with an interpreter d. Integrated/Mainstreamed into general/regular education classes without an interpreter e. Other 7. Which of these describes your primary place of education? a. Residential School b. Self-Contained class with a deaf educator in a public school program c. Integrated/Mainstreamed into general/regular education classes with an interpreter d. Integrated/Mainstreamed into general/regular education classes without an interpreter e. Other
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 90
Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Real World Applications of Technology
8. Which of the following internet technologies do you use? a. Email b. Chat Rooms c. Instant Messaging d. Blogs e. Listservs f. Web Boards g. Usenet h. Text Relay i. Video Relay 9. Of the internet technologies that you use, how often do you use them and what benefits (if any) do they provide you? 10. Which of the following portable communication devices do you use? A. Blackberry B. RIM C. Sidekick D. PDA E. O-Go F. Cell Phones G. Other 11. When using portable communication devices, which programs do you use frequently? a. Email b. Instant Messaging Programs c. Relay d. SMS/Text Messaging e. Internet 12. Of all the portable communication devices you use, what benefits do they provide you?
Technology in the Classroom
13. Please describe how you use technology in your classes.
14. What technologies do instructors/professors/ lab assistants/teacher assistants use in your classes/labs? 15. How does technology facilitate communication between you and your hearing peers? 16. How has technology assisted your integration into the college classroom? 17. How has technology improved or changed your communication with college faculty? 18. How has technology improved your understanding of class lectures? 19. How has technology improved your understanding of material in labs, study groups, etc.? 20. If you don’t utilize an interpreter what, if any, technology do you use to acquire information from lectures, from professors, and from peers? 21. What, if any, assistive listening devices do you use? 22. If you could design an assistive listening device, what would you incorporate and why? 23. How can technology improve lecture comprehension? 24. How has classroom technology changed since you were a child? 25. Have you improved or changed your assistive listening devices since you were a child? 26. What classroom struggles do you have that technology could make easier?
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 91 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Assistive Technology and Emergent Literacy for Preschoolers: A Literature Review
Kimberly Kris Floyd Old Dominion University
Lora Lee Smith Canter Tara Jeffs East Carolina University
Sharon A. Judge Old Dominion University
Abstract: Despite the legislative mandate for importance. Given this expectation for assistive technology (AT) consideration and children entering Kindergarten, the push for the tenacity of researchers, educators, and effective, early, literacy instruction must practitioners to develop more proficient become a curricular concern and emphasis for readers at younger ages, cohesive and early childhood educators. Additionally, the comprehensive emergent literacy technology prominence of providing students with planning has not been sufficiently developed disabilities access to the general curriculum for preschool children with disabilities. The only strengthens the significance of literacy purpose of this review is to synthesize skill development in early childhood information and research on available AT environments given that access to the general used with young children to promote the curriculum for preschool children occurs development of emergent literacy skills. within the daily, instructional, early childhood Following the background discussion, key curricula. articles will be summarized, synthesized, and critiqued. Discussion focuses on the lack of Developing the skills necessary to become empirical research in the combined areas of literate and perform competently in a literate emergent literacy, AT, and preschool children; society begins very early in a child’s life. From the need for conceptualized definitions of AT birth, children begin to interact with the world and emergent literacy across disciplines; around them, and some of the most existing barriers; and gaps in the research. naturalistic behaviors of children can influence the beginnings of literacy Keywords: Assistive technology, Emergent development. For the purpose of this article, literacy, Preschool, Early childhood emergent literacy is conceptualized as global early experiences that create a foundation of Literacy skills are critical for every person in life-long literacy and academic and personal the U.S. Legislation such as the Goals 2000: success (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). The Educate America Act and No Child Left early experiences that children engage in from Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) stress the birth through the time when they adopt importance of reading at every entry level-- conventional literacy skills bring “meaning to from early childhood through adulthood. reading and writing” (Koenig & Holbrook, They have emphasized that creating a literate 2000, p. 265). These early experiences include: society is considered of paramount (a) learning to listen and respond to oral
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 92 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
communication; (b) interacting with written essential vocabulary. High-tech solutions text (e.g. holding books, ‘reading’ books by typically involve the computer or have using the pictures); and (c) exploring the computer components, such as specialized written and verbal world (e.g. scribbling with a software and advanced hardware devices. AT crayon, turning pages, talking with others, and encompasses both low- and high-tech options pretending to read; Justice & Pullen, 2003; with the federal definition culminating and Koenig, 1992). In short, emergent literacy is addressing all aspects: the cornerstone of future literacy functioning. AT has been defined in the Individuals with NCLB created the Early Reading First (ERF) Disabilities Education Improvement Act of program to improve teacher practices, 2004 (IDEIA) as “any item, piece of instructional content, and classroom equipment, or product system, whether environments in preschool settings. The acquired commercially or off the shelf, anticipation was to assist in ensuring that modified, or customized, that is used to young children start school with the skills increase, maintain, or improve the functional needed for academic success. Whether capabilities of a child with a disability” [20 educators and researchers agree on the means U.S.C. § 1401(a)(25)]. This legislation echoed government is using to promote literacy and the benefit of AT by emphasizing that both institute lofty literacy goals for all children, Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and there is no disagreement that literacy is one of Individualized Family Services Plan (IFSP) the most important areas of learning for all teams consider the use of AT within the individuals. There is a stronger emergent child’s learning environment (Mandlawitz, literacy skill development research base for 2006). Addressing AT considerations is not a children ages five to eight, K-3rd grade, and mere luxury, but rather a federally mandated older elementary and middle grade students requirement. than for children who are three to five years of age. In general, the research base is slowly In addition to the federal mandates, a position but steadily validating best practices for early statement generated by the Division on literacy education of children (Erickson & Mental Retardation and Developmental Koppenhaver, 1995). Disabilities of the Council of Exceptional Children stated that persons with Assistive Technology developmental disabilities do, in fact, benefit from the use of AT (Parette, 1997). More Just as the definition of early literacy has specifically for young children, the National expanded, so have the parameters of assistive Association for the Education of Young technology (AT). Technology can take many Children (NAEYC, 1996) has supported the forms such as (a) no-tech, (b) low-tech, and developmentally appropriate integration of (c) high-tech. No tech is simply that: no technology in preschool settings. technology is involved; instead, strategies are used to provide an opportunity for learner AT can benefit children with increased success (e.g. extended time, colored folders, opportunities for socialization, index cards, chunking materials, and/or communication attempts and interaction, pairing pictures with print). Low-tech increased self-esteem and confidence, as well solutions involve use of straightforward tools as developing language and communication such as simple voice output devices, adapted skills (Erickson & Koppenhaver, 1995; scissors, raised-lined paper, step-by-step Hutinger & Clark, 2000). This parallels the picture schedules, and /or printed labels with Social Learning Theory first presented by
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 93 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Vygotsky (1996) in which children learn Earlier works of Kamil and Intraror (1998) through interaction, communication, and play, and Lankshear and Knobel (2003) exposed thus strengthening the importance of AT and the fact that the area of literacy and the use of its critical link to increased communicative technology were radically under-researched. attempts, more engaged play, and increased Kamil and Intraror reviewed the literature for socialization. Children vary greatly on how empirical based research articles from the they access, use, and engage learning materials years 1986 to 1995 that pertained to school– (Strangman & Dalton, 2005). AT provides aged children and literacy and technology use tools for young children to become active in a broad sense. Lankshear and Knobel built versus passive learners. on Kamil and Intrator’s review by surveying professional journals for research studies Preschoolers with special needs have many published from 1996 through 2002, and options at their disposal with the advances in which encompassed new technologies technology, availability of AT, as well as the (computer-based applications) and early growing array of AT devices. However, it childhood literacy (ages 0-8 years). Building should be noted, having a repertoire of on these earlier works we examined current devices is not enough to ensure that the needs literature that addressed assistive technology, of a student are compensated with emergent literacy and early childhood (ages 3 appropriate technology tools. The challenge to 5). has been taking the next step, such as matching appropriate AT to the needs of The purpose of this review is three-fold: to (a) preschoolers with disabilities. A key factor to conduct a literature review of scholarly successful integration is to match learner publications in the area of AT that focus on needs with appropriate technology needed for emergent literacy for preschoolers, (b) discuss the instructional task, while simultaneously the outcomes and benefits of AT, and (c) evaluating the teacher’s knowledge and describe implications for future research. This experience to implement the AT (Judge, review closely follows a research synthesis 2006). model developed by Edyburn (2000). Within such a model, the examination of the AT, Emergent Literacy, and Preschool Aged literature was conducted by applying four Children procedures. These included: (a) search procedures, (b) inclusion criteria, (c) AT may hold promise for helping aid relevance, and (d) completion of article children’s development in many areas; analysis form per each article reviewed. The however, even with the recognition of the following section provides greater detail benefits of technology there has been little regarding each procedure. information about the effect technology use has on preschool-aged children’s development Method (Skeele & Stefankiewicz, 2002). It is very possible that AT could enhance the Procedures developmental skills targeted by emergent literacy activities (e.g., cognitive development, Search procedures. Article search language development), but there is a dearth procedures were conducted using the of empirical studies which address the following components: (a) electronic-based acquisition of emergent literacy skills and the searches in the Library Information Access use of AT. System through the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest, and
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 94 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Infotrac® using AT with key descriptors or AT; and (c) a traditional search using the truncation (i.e., ‘technology,’ ‘disabilities,’ reference section of articles obtained through ‘alternate and augmentative communication the above two methods. [AAC],’ ‘emergent literacy,’ ‘early literacy,’ ‘preschool’); (b) a manual search of refereed Inclusion criteria. Using the selection journals publishing articles on disabilities, criteria procedures described above, more early childhood education, literacy, AAC, and than 500 articles were found. The selection
Table 1 Coverage and Scope of Articles Selected for Review
Study Purpose Critique
Beck (2002) Case study examining how AT Variations were noted in how technology components affected emergent literacy in a were used which may call into question the fidelity, preschool classroom for students reliability and validity with multiple disabilities Case study methodology. Noted a teacher-made checklist to collect data on progression of both student receptive and expressive knowledge of symbols though it was not specifically described.
Technologies used: picture communication symbols, adapted books, Big Mack switch, Intellikeys/Intellitools.
Hutinger et al. (2006) Longitudinal Study Strong reliability, validity, and fidelity measures
Dependent variable: Primary findings: Computer use; teacher perception Teachers need significant training and support when implementing an innovation Independent variables: Children did make gains in literacy measures Use or non use of the model Length of time the teachers received Secondary findings: replication training and follow up Data analysis is ongoing Technologies used: computer-based activities/software
Lankshear & Knobel Intent was to map recent research Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions did impact technology (2003) pertaining to new technologies and use and were related to lack of understanding software, early childhood literacy in ways that narrow definition of literacy, lack of time, and expertise. may be useful to early childhood educators and researchers Similar search and procedure as this review.
Marsh (2004) Family surveys: Avg age of children The authors make a case for techno-literacy to actually be in the families was 2 yrs 8 mo. considered a form of emergent literacy in itself; in essence, Families were targeted from it is not how technology can enhance literacy but the fact disadvantaged environments in that technology has become a part of emergent literacy as home. 26 families of the 44 much as the experience. volunteered to be interviewed and they were the parents of 13 boys Different cultural perspective than the dominant culture in and 13 girls the U.S.
Technology used: television, film, computer games, and mobile phones.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 95 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
criterion was further refined by limiting the Limitations inclusion to AT with the following categories: emergent or early literacy (n = 23), then This review was a focused examination of further refinement of early childhood literacy current articles (within the last five years) (n = 6). Articles published between the years specifically addressing AT, emergent literacy, 2002 to 2007 were reviewed to establish the and early childhood. Because of the specific relevance to the special topic of the emergent nature of this review, there are limitations that literacy and the use of AT. Only peer- should be noted. One possible limitation may reviewed articles published in journals were be the omission of important articles written used in this review. See Table 1 for a brief prior to 2002, or work not published in peer- purpose and content analysis of articles reviewed journals (e.g., reports, conference selected for review. papers, etc.). Another possible limitation may be the exclusion of articles outside the Relevance. An article was determined parameters of all three descriptors (i.e., AT, relevant and was included if it was peer- emergent literacy, and early childhood). An reviewed and published between 2002 and attempt to conduct an exhaustive search of 2007 and the primary focus of the article was literature was the ultimate goal; however, related to AT in the areas of preschool, early there may have been additional search literacy, or emergent literacy. Articles were techniques not explored. Only journal articles excluded if (a) AT was only mentioned as a published in English were examined in this consideration or a recommendation; (b) AT review. This resulted in a pool of only five was demonstrated as a tool, but not one articles meeting the specific criteria for this specifically targeting early or emergent review. literacy; or (c) emergent literacy research was conducted on children older than five years. Findings and Discussion
Article analysis. A content analysis was This section of the review includes a synthesis generated to provide a summary of selected of the findings from five articles satisfying the articles. The analysis was divided into selection criteria. Specifically, this section will examining six categories (a) background provide an assessment of available research in information (i.e., full citation, purpose of the field of AT and preschool children’s study); (b) participant characteristics (i.e., emergent literacy development. This review background characteristics of study investigated the following themes present in participants, number not completing study the body of research: (a) lack of clear or and why); (c) research design (i.e., design of poorly communicated conceptualizations of the study, description of theory or model); (d) key terminology, (b) implementation barriers, practice characteristics (i.e., independent and (c) limited research base. variables; characteristics of the intervention measures; treatment fidelity); (e) outcomes Conceptualization Problems (i.e., outcome measures; how were they measured; measurement of reliability or As stated previously, the intent of this review validity); and (f) synthesis findings (i.e., how was to find articles that specifically addressed are characteristics of the practice related to emergent literacy and AT within the context the outcome; positive or negative outcomes; of preschool aged children’s development. level of measurement used to describe the When examining the selected articles, there practice and outcome). Results from the appeared to be a lack of or poorly analysis are summarized in Table 1. communicated delineation of the terms
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 96 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
‘emergent literacy’ and ‘AT.’ Differences in technology, resources and technical assistance orientations with regard to these two key needed). These researchers reflected a terms could lead to a convoluted marriage between emergent literacy and conceptualization. technology with AT providing an avenue for interaction and engagement with literacy. In all of the articles reviewed the authors noted that there was considerable work in the Interestingly, Beck (2002), in an article area of emergent literacy; however, authors of published more for early childhood education three articles did suggest that the term practitioners, narrowly defined emergent emergent literacy had been limited only to literacy in both scope and validation of AT: print-based materials. Marsh (2004) stated that “Emergent literacy is concerned with the early the view of current definitions of emergent phases of literacy development, the period literacy were too restrictive and needed to be between birth and the time when children reconceptualized. Lankshear and Knobel read and write conventionally” (p. 44). Unlike (2003) concurred with Marsh’s evaluation and the other articles reviewed, there was no clear assertion that the acquisition of literacy is too assertion that technology should be narrowly defined. All of these researchers considered in the conceptualization of agree that literacy experiences should be emergent literacy. viewed in a monolithic way by examining emergent literacy with a broader approach and Another interesting finding related to the within a variety of contexts. These researchers conceptualization of emergent literacy was made a point to explain that they were that the articles in research journals seemed to examining ‘techno-literacy,’ but did not clearly stress the need for incorporating technology define the dimensions of such a term. Further, literacy within the construct of emergent when these researchers introduced the term literacy. In contrast, the article in a techno-literacy they may inadvertently practitioner friendly journal presented a very generated a distinction between techno- traditional definition of emergent literacy and literacy and emergent literacy where the terms AT, with AT not being considered as an had been perceived as two different entities. integral part of an emergent literacy program. There was no clearly operationalized Hutinger, Bell, Daytner, and Johanson (2006) definition of emergent literacy across the broadly conceptualized the term to articles reviewed. All of the ideas were related encompass a wide array of skills and but there were slight, and possibly behaviors. They demonstrated their broader unintended, variations in the conceptualization by the scope of their conceptualization of emergent literacy across outcome measures through examination of studies. A universal definition of the term emergent literacy behaviors beyond simple emergent literacy is needed to include print awareness and interactions with text. In behaviors for interacting with both print and their three year longitudinal study, Hutinger et technology-based materials. In light of these al. examined the emergent literacy growth of findings, it is evident that future research preschool children at risk for or having would benefit from a consistent and global disabilities (e.g., orientation to book, assessing description of what constitutes emergent early writing development, child’s literacy behaviors taking into account the communicative attempts); student behavioral advancements in technology and other changes with regard to literacy (e.g. attending learning tools, such as digital and virtual skills, interactivity, response to pictures); and learning. teacher outcomes (e.g. increased comfort with
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 97 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
The problems with the conceptualization of the technology itself rather than technology as AT is slightly different than the a tool for learning. conceptualization of emergent literacy. Variations in the conceptualization of Barriers to Implementation emergent literacy are often reflected across researchers in the field (c.f., Beck, 2002; A majority of articles reviewed discussed Neuman & Dickenson, 2001). In contrast, the possible barriers to using technology with conceptualization of AT has benefited from a young children (Hutinger et al., 2006; well-defined standard definition provided by Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Marsh, 2004; federal mandates. However, in Weikle & Hadadian, 2003). The most implementation, variations in the common barrier identified in this review dealt conceptualization of AT can occur from other with teacher perceptions, attitudes, and professional, general educators, curriculum practices. Teachers play a significant role in developers, and families. For example, the the implementation of technology in the impetus for expanding access and educational classroom while parents were viewed as the opportunities for all learners has resulted in a gatekeepers and implementers in the home stronger examination of universal design for environment (Hutinger et al.). Studies reveal learning (UDL) principles and its integration that teachers need training and technical into classrooms. The concept of UDL has support to infuse AT into their classrooms. blurred the once clean definition of AT. Given that technology seldom is implemented Consequently, many persons both in and with young children in isolation, there is no outside the field of AT and special education doubt that the teacher’s ability, confidence, as view AT and UDL as synonymous entities. well as perceived usefulness of the technology greatly influence the frequency and duration To expound, many researchers in the field of of technology use (Hutinger et al.). As a result, AT conceptualize AT as a continuum of teachers with greater levels of perceived devices and strategies (Mistrett, Lane, & comfort with technology were also more likely Ruffino, 2005). Other educators and to implement technology-enhanced activities professionals tend to equate AT with more versus only viewing the computer as the only expensive high-tech devices often overlooking source of technology (Hutinger et al.). low-tech options; that is, sometimes individuals of influence in a child’s education Weikle and Hadadian (2003) provided may overlook effective low-tech devices and practical recommendations for parents and may be dissuaded from investigating AT professionals to enhance literacy by using AT. because of a perceived expense and training The authors emphasized that both parents requirements (Ashton, 2000). This incorrect and professionals are hesitant and resistive to conceptualization may be inadvertently acknowledge the importance of technology in reinforced because many AT research articles the enhancement of emergent literacy skill seem to focus more on high-tech options. development. It was also revealed that the This was true for articles in this review: three lack of society’s acceptance of AT with the articles dealt exclusively with high-tech youngest of learners does create a barrier to (Hutinger et al., 2006; Lankshear & Knobel, implementation of possible successful 2003; Marsh, 2004); one focused on both intervention strategies. high- and low-tech (Beck, 2002); and only one article investigated low-tech resources (Weikle Interestingly, the identified barriers revolved & Hadadian, 2003). AT can be incorrectly around socio cultural issues rather than conceptualized when the focus is placed on practical concerns. For example, none of the
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 98 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 studies in this review suggested that funding, perspectives regarding the conceptualization either positively or negatively, influenced AT of emergent literacy, technology, and AT in and emergent literacy instruction. Likewise, early childhood education; (c) increased technology itself was not identified as a collaboration, communication, and barrier. investment of time and resources among key stake holders regarding AT and its role in Limited Research Base emergent literacy for young children; and (d) heightened recognition of the socio cultural This examination identified a recurring theme influences affecting technology and AT that there is a limited amount of research integration in early childhood emergent addressing AT, emergent literacy, and literacy programs and activities. Each of these preschool children simultaneously. This is discussed in the following section. paucity of research was addressed in some manner within all articles reviewed. Lankshear Need for Empirical Research and Knobel (2003) examined ‘new technology’ as it relates to emergent literacy Technology is indeed an undisputable and characterized the research in this area as presence in all aspects of life in contemporary ‘piecemeal’ and ‘hopelessly inconclusive.’ society today. In 2003, 91% of children in nursery school through 12th grade (n = ~53 For this review, a concerted effort was made million) used computers and 59% (n = ~35 to locate scholarly articles in the areas of AT, million persons) used the Internet. The high emergent literacy, and preschool children percentage of preschool-aged children in 2003 concomitantly. Given the criterion, the review that actively interacted with computers and only yielded five peer reviewed articles in the computer related technologies (66%; n = ~3 past 5 years. One of the articles selected for million preschoolers) further accentuates the analysis in this review was a review of research presence of technology in the lives of from 1996 to 2002 (Lankshear & Knobel, individuals beginning at a very young age 2003). These researchers used similar (National Center for Educational Statistics procedures implemented in this review and [NCES], 2005). located only five articles. Therefore, over an 11-year period, only 11 articles were located Further evidence of the trend toward which addressed the search descriptors. As increased technology integration on a very previously discussed, much work continues to basic level is the continuing increase of address emergent literacy skill acquisition as computers and their use in American schools. well as the use of AT, though not in In 1998 the average public school contained conjunction with each other at the preschool approximately 90 computers as compared to level. approximately 154 computers in 2005. Additionally, access to the Internet in Outcomes and Benefits of AT instructional settings has increased from 51% to 94% from 1998 to 2005 (NCES, 2008). The premise of this literature review was that meaningful integration of technology could To ensure full potential for students with enhance emergent literacy for preschool disabilities from this increased access to children. This review generated the following: computers and the Internet, AT is often an a need for (a) more empirical research in the integral part of the instructional activity. As a area of AT, emergent literacy, and early result, researchers must decipher the childhood; (b) shared professional effectiveness of AT isolated from other
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 99 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1 educational interventions (Fennema-Jansen, Increased Collaboration, Communication, and Edyburn, Smith, Wilson, & Binion, 2007). Investment Currently, initiatives are in place to gauge the outcomes of AT in school settings (e.g., Increased collaboration, communication and Project OATS; Fennema-Jansen et al.). While investment of time and resources among key there are similarities in preschool children’s stake holders regarding AT and its role in abilities, use, and needs a compared to older emergent literacy for young children is children’s skill sets, an examination of essential. Lankshear and Knobel (2003) appropriate AT tools and devices for asserted that few mainstream journals address preschoolers is underexamined (Judge, 2006; technology in conjunction with emergent Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). More AT literacy. It is critical that successful practices projects such as Let’s Play be disseminated to those needing the (http://letsplay.buffalo.edu/index.html) and information most (i.e., families and similar initiatives are needed to provide a professionals). In order to provide key foundation for future research. resources and proven approaches, stakeholders must align technology and Common Conceptual Framework strategies, while carefully documenting outcomes. Through collaboration, Research studies in the area of AT, emergent stakeholders bring about the best literacy literacy, and preschool children that adhere to experiences and opportunities for scientific rigor (e.g., replicable, empirically preschoolers with each lending their expertise sound) and work in tandem with current and insight. programs and practices provide insightful information to chart new pathways for Recognize Socio Cultural Influences learning. The process of establishing a conceptual framework is currently reflected in Evidence-based practices and programs the efforts of several states (e.g., Florida and promoting effective integration of technology Georgia) to establish emergent literacy and AT with emergent literacy can be curriculum standards for preschools. Another rendered ineffectual by extenuating socio example is the National Educational cultural influences. For example, teachers who Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S; are not comfortable with technology and do International Society for Technology in not use technology in their personal lives may Education, 2007) in grades PK-2 (ages 4-8). be resistant to integrating technology in The next step in extending and refining the emergent literacy programs. In this case, conceptualization of emergent literacy and AT teachers’ comfort levels determined the socio with preschool children is to look across cultural environmental condition for the published standards to identify commonalities children they were serving. Additional socio and interrelatedness. This conceptualization cultural factors such as family beliefs, allows for the development of measurable interaction patterns, gender, ethnicity, and indicators for technology and emergent socioeconomic status (SES), can be involved literacy competence in young children. A in determining effective integration practices. common conceptual framework provides Further, it appears a catalyst for widespread parameters for researchers, educators, and implementation of AT with young children families. lies in addressing socio culture challenges present in early childhood environments.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 100 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Conclusion Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Researchers and practitioners alike have (2004). advocated that working on developing Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, emergent literacy skills among young children 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (1990). could help alleviate negative academic and Individuals with Disabilities Education personal outcomes. As technology continues Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et to expand and grow, more AT, both low- and seq. (2004). high-tech, will continue to be developed. International Society for Technology in Therefore, incorporating technological Education. (2007). The ISTE national advances should be a key component in educational technology standards (NETS•S) and designing the most effective and innovative performance indicators for students. Retrieved emergent literacy interventions. October 8, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/Navigation References Menu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standard s/NETS_for_Students_2007_Standards.p Ashton, T. M. (2000). Assistive technology. df Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), Judge, S. (2006). Constructing an assistive 57-58. technology toolkit for young children: Beck, J. (2002). Emerging literacy through Views from the field. Journal of Special assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Education Technology, 21(4), 17-24. Children, 35(2), 44-48. Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003) Edyburn, D. L. (2000). 1999 in review. A Enhancing phonological awareness, print synthesis of the synthesis of the special awareness, and oral language in preschool education technology literature. Journal of children. Intervention in School & Clinic, 38. Special Education, 15(1), 7-18. 87-98. Erickson, K., & Koppenhaver, D. (1995). Kamil, M., & Intrator, S. (1998). Quantitative Developing a literacy program for trends in publication of research on children with severe disabilities. The technology and reading, writing, and Reading Teacher, 48, 676-684. literacy. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez- Fennema-Jansen, S., Edyburn, E., Smith, R., Beown (Eds.), National Reading Conference Wilson, S., & Binion, M. (2007). Yearbook 47 (pp. 385-96). Chicago, IL: Developing a statewide system for National Reading Conference. providing and assessing outcomes of Koenig, A. J. (1992). A framework for assistive technology. Journal of Special understanding the literacy of individuals Education Technology, 22(1), 37-52. with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. Impairment & Blindness, 86, 277-284. §§ 5811 et seq. (1994) Koenig, A. J., & Holbrook, M. C. (2000). Hutinger, P., & Clark, L. (2000). Ensuring high-quality instruction for TEChPLACEs: An internet community students in braille literacy programs. for young children, and their families. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94, Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(4), 56-63. 677–694. Hutinger, P., Bell, C., Daytner, G., & Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New Johanson, J (2006). Establishing and technologies in early childhood literacy maintaining an early childhood emergent research: A review of research. Journal of literacy technology curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 59-82. Special Education Technology, 21(4), 39-54. Mandlawitz, M. (2006). What every teacher should
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 101 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
know about IDEA 2004. Boston: Allyn & annotated bibliography of internet Bacon. resources for teachers of young children. Marsh, J. (2004). The techno-literacy practices AACE Journal, 10(2), 79-95. of young children. Journal of Early Childhood Strangman, N., & Dalton, B. (2005). Using Research, 2(1), 51-66. technology to support struggling readers: Mistrett, S., Lane, S., & Ruffino, A. (2005). A review of the research. In D. Edyburn, Growing and learning through K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), technology: Birth to five. In D. Edyburn, Handbook of special education K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook technology research and practice (pp. 545- of special education technology research and 569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by practice (pp. 545-569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Design. Knowledge by Design. Vygotsky, L. (1996). Thought and language (rev. National Association for the Education of ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Young Children. (1996). Technology and Weikle, B., & Hadadian, A. (2003). Can young children – ages 3 through 8: A position assistive technology help us to not leave statement of the National Association of the any child behind? Preventing School Failure, Education of Young Children. Washington, 47, 181-186. DC: Author: Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/p df/PSTECH98.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Rates of computer and Internet use by children in nursery school and students in kindergarten through twelfth grade: 2003 (NCES 2005–111). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006 065.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Digest of education statistics: 2007 (NCES 2008–022). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d07 Neuman, S., & Dickinson, D. K. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of early literacy research. New York. Guilford. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2001) Parette, H. P. (1997). Assistive technology devices and services. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, 267-280. Skeele, R., & Stefankiewicz, G. (2002). Blackbox in the sandbox: The decision to use technology with young children with
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 102 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
CALL FOR PAPERS
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
Fall, 2009 Submission deadline: April 30, 2009
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is a peer-reviewed, cross-disability, transdisciplinary journal that publishes articles related to the outcomes and benefits of assistive technology (AT) across the lifespan. The journal’s purposes are to (a) foster communication among vendors, AT Specialists, AT Consultants, and other professionals that work in the field of AT, family members, and consumers with disabilities; (b) facilitate dialogue regarding effective AT practices; and (c) help practitioners, consumers, and family members advocate for effective AT practices.
Call for Papers for Volume 6
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits invites submissions of original manuscripts for publication consideration. Only papers that address outcomes or benefits related to assistive technology devices and services will be accepted. These may include (a) findings of original scientific research, including group studies and single subject designs; (b) marketing research conducted relevant to specific devices having broad interest across disciplines and disabilities; (c) technical notes regarding AT product development findings; (d) qualitative studies, such as focus group and structured interview findings with consumers and their families regarding AT service delivery and associated outcomes and benefits; and (e) project/program descriptions in which AT outcomes and benefits have been documented.
This peer-reviewed journal will include a broad spectrum of papers on topics specifically dealing with AT outcomes and benefits issues, in (but NOT limited to) the following areas: Transitions Employment Outcomes Research Innovative Program Descriptions Government Policy Research and Development Low Incidence Populations For information on how to submit manuscripts see the Guidelines for Authors at http://atobjournal.org
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 103 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Guidelines for Authors
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits Submission deadline for Volume 6: April 30, 2009
Submission Categories
Articles may be submitted under two categories—Voices from the Field and Voices from the Industry.
Voices from the Field. Articles submitted under this category should come from professionals who are involved in some aspect of assistive technology service delivery with persons having disabilities, or from family members and/or consumers with disabilities.
Voices from the Industry. Articles submitted under this category should come from professionals involved in developing and marketing specific assistive technology devices and services.
Within each of these two categories, authors have a range of options for the type of manuscript submitted. Regardless of the type of article submitted, primary consideration will be given by the journal to work that has quantifiable results.
Types of articles that are appropriate include:
• Applied/Clinical Research. Original work presented with careful attention to experimental design, objective data analysis, and reference to the literature. • Case Studies. Studies that involve only one or a few subjects or an informal protocol. Publication is justified if the results are potentially significant and have broad appeal to a cross-disciplinary audience. • Design. Conceptual or physical design of new assistive technology models, techniques, or devices. • Marketing Research. Industry-based research related to specific AT devices and/or services. • Project/Program Description. Grant projects, private foundation activities, institutes, and centers having specific goals and objectives related to AT outcomes and benefits.
In all categories, authors MUST include a section titled ‘Outcomes and Benefits’ in which a discussion is provided related to outcomes and benefits of the assistive technology devices/services addressed in the article.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 104 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines for Submission to
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
All articles submitted will be refereed by the Editorial Review Board. Recommendations on suitability for publication will be taken as final by the Editor.
All other items would not be reviewed, but the editors reserve the right to refuse or (with the approval of contributors) to edit copy.
1. Each manuscript must reflect style guidelines of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edition, 2001). 2. Manuscripts should be no more than 25 pages in length (double-spaced), including references, tables, and figures. Due to the electronic format of the journal, all submissions should be submitted as email attachments in a Microsoft® Word format. The following information should be provided on the cover page of each manuscript:
• Author’(s’) full name(s) and title(s) • Name of corresponding author • Job title(s) • Organization(s) • Full contact information of the corresponding author, including email address, postal address, telephone and fax numbers • Each manuscript should have at least the following components: o Title (up to 10 words) o Abstract (75 to 150 words) presenting the main points of the paper and the contributor’s/s’ conclusions regarding outcomes and benefits o 3-4 keywords o Main body of paper o Outcomes and Benefits section o References
3. Submissions should be double-spaced. 4. Articles should be subdivided into unnumbered sections, using short, meaningful headings according to Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edition, 2001). 5. Footnotes and endnotes are not accepted; all such information should be included in main text. 6. The keywords (just after the abstract) should be separated by commas, and each keyword phrase should have initial caps (e.g., Communication devices, Families). 7. Authors should not use underline to emphasize text, but use italics instead. 8. For figures, .tiff, .eps, and .jpg are preferred formats. Figures should be embedded in the text narrative at appropriate places and centered horizontally. Captions (maximum 6 to 8 words each) must be provided for every figure (below the figure) and must be referenced in the text. If scanned images are used as figures, authors are responsible for insuring that they are crisp images (i.e., no pixilation, fuzziness, or shading artifacts).
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 105 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
In the event that the file(s) can't be opened, the Editor will contact the corresponding author by email and request that the appropriate format be provided. Figures should NOT have text captions embedded in them. Text captions should be contained in the narrative. Figures that are copyrighted or adapted from copyrighted figures must have approval for use. Notation of this approval is included in the figure caption along with a letter from the copyright holder indicating approval for use or adaptation (see p. 174 of APA Manual for guidelines).
Sample
Figure 1. Comparison of direct teaching vs. use of calculator on functional performance. Source: ©2007, SEAT Center. Used with permission.
If the figure is excerpted or adapted from a previously published source:
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 106 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Figure 1. Comparison of direct teaching vs. use of calculator on functional performance. Source: Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Wojcik, B. W., & Bardi, N. (2007). Monitor that progress! Interpreting data trends for AT decision-making. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(7), p. 6. Used with permission.
9. Tables should be included in the text at appropriate places and centered horizontally. Captions (maximum 6 to 8 words each) must be provided for every table (above the table) and must be referenced in the text. Tables should not be graphic images, but should be original tables created using the Table feature of Microsoft® Word (see pp. 147-176 of APA Manual for table preparation guidelines).
Example:
Table 1
Focus Group Participant Demographics
Yrs. Professional Gender Degree Education Role Classroom Sam M BS 16 Teacher Pre-K Joan F BS 17 Aide Pre-K Deborah F BS 16 Aide Pre-K Makela F HS 12 Aide ECE Tom M BS 14 Aide ECE
10. The References section should contain appropriate citations noted in the APA Manual (5th ed.)
Sample citations
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 107 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
Journal article
James, P., & Tatem, J. J. (2003). Assistive technology benefits. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 39, 336-337.
Paper presentation
Stuart, S. K., & Kemp, L. M. (2003, January). Native Americans and AAC issues. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Assistive Technology Industry Association, New Orleans, LA.
Book
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education. Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore: Brookes.
Book chapter
Soto, G., Huer, M., & Taylor, O. (1997). Multicultural issues in augmentative and alternative communication. In L. Lloyd, D. Fuller, & H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 406-413). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Legislation (Any law that is described in the manuscript narrative must be included in the Reference List; see p. 404 of APA Manual)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (1997). No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2001)
Electronic Resources
Use of electronic sources has become increasingly common, though many authors are unfamiliar with appropriate citation and referencing formats when using such sources. For any electronic citation, please refer to pp. 268-281 in the APA Manual for appropriate formats. Please be sure that the most current link to the file is presented in the reference (Note: Authors often use older Web citations that are no longer accessible or that are archived on other sites. Check the link to all electronic citations to ensure that it is still active; if not, be sure to locate the current link and include that in the reference.)
Institute for Matching Person and Technology. (2007). Matching person and technology (MPT) assessment process. Retrieved August 15, 2007, from http://members.aol.com/impt97/mptdesc.html
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 108 Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1
11. All statistical symbols should be in italics. 12. The Editor will acknowledge receipt of a submitted article immediately. 13. Authors are encouraged to write in the third person and use “person-first” language, i.e., the individual precedes the disability. For example, phrases such as “persons with disabilities,” “students with mental retardation,” “and “adults with cognitive impairments” are more appropriate than such phrases as “the disabled,” “learning disabled students,” or “mentally retarded adults.” Consumers and family members who submit manuscripts describing specific practices may use the first person. 14. A cover statement in the submission should indicate that the manuscript has not been published in whole or substantial part by another publisher and that it is not currently under review by another journal.
All submissions for the sixth volume of Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits are due by April 30. 2009.
After a manuscript has been accepted for publication and subsequent to making all changes recommended by the editorial review board, authors must send a copy of the revised manuscript and a computer file to the Editor via email to: [email protected] or via mail to: Dr. Phil Parette, Special Education Assistive Technology (SEAT) Center, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5910fa, Normal, IL 61790-5910
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is copyrighted by the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) and Special Education Assistive Technology (SEAT) Center. The journal and authors jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the appropriate citation, such as the following:
Source: Anyone, I. M. (2007). Title of article. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2(1), 12-19. Used with permission.
Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ATIA and the SEAT Center must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission of the Editor at [email protected]
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 109