A GUIDE TO FACILITATE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY BEST PRACTICES FOR

USE BY INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM TEAMS

by

William Douglas Cunningham

This project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Curriculum and Instruction

Ferris State UniversitySchool of Education

College of Education and Human Services

August 4, 2014

A GUIDE TO FACILITATE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY BEST PRACTICES FOR

USE BY INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM TEAMS

by

William Douglas Cunningham

Has been approved

August, 2014

APPROVED:

__________________________________________________________________, Chair

________________________________________________________________, Member

________________________________________________________________, Member

Supervisory Committee

ACCEPTED:

__________________________School of Education Graduate Coordinator

i

Abstract

The purpose of assistive technology (AT) in a Kindergarten through 12th grade public-

school is to facilitate the access of academic and social strengths of an individual learner.

Assistive technology enhances and allows for the learner’s disability to be minimized.

These AT resources must be set in place in order for the assistive component of the

technology to occur. The focus of this project is to fill a void within the process of

integrating AT into the learning environment of Kindergarten through 12th grade public

school students. This includes the absence of resources, procedures, and policies within

small elementary schools. Even with the mandate of federal and state laws for the

application of assistive technology, this lack of support is a reality within small rural

school districts. Specifically, the result of this project is to establish a working resource

guide for the AT integration process into a specific small rural Kindergarten through 12th

grade public school. This project will include application of tools to support fine motor

skills and speech to text technologies for both lower and upper elementary learners. The

implications of this guide will allow for IEP team decision-makers to properly consider

AT and how it applies to individual students. The IEP team decision-making will also be

guided into compliance with current law as they create and implement the individual

education program decisions into the school setting.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

1 Introduction……………………………………………………. 1

2 Review of Literature…………………………………………… 3

The Law…………………………………………………….. 3

Assistive Technology Consideration………………………. 6

Using Assistive Technology………………….……………. 9

Decision Making Resources……………………………….. 11

Employing Assistive Technology………………………….. 12

3 Methodology…………..……………………………………… 15

Contents of the Project………………………………..……. 15

Application of the Project …………………………………. 15

4 The Project……………………………………………………. 17

Moodle Site Checklist …………………………………….. 20

Michigan’s Integrated Technology Supports ……………... 21

District AT Template ……………………………………… 29

5 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations...………… 30

Conclusions………………………………………………. 30

Recommendations………………………………………… 32

Limitations………………………………………………… 32

References…………………………………………………… 35

Appendices…………………………………………………… 41

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

In today's fast-paced world of education there exists tools that need to be used to

its full potential within the general education classroom setting. These tools are known as

assistive technology (AT). The implementation of assistive technology requires

availability to guidelines for its integration. The lack of guidance for implementing AT is

often an occurrence within small rural elementary schools. The focus of this project is to

help facilitate the improvement of specific individual education programs or (IEP) teams

and their AT decision-making with a distinct rural elementary school.

With the advent of the information age, new methods of communication of

knowledge across the disciplines of education are now available to special education

professionals and IEP team decision makers. These methods are known to be cost-

effective and user-friendly to the technologically savvy professional educator. The need

to implement and activate this knowledge of AT is imperative.

The difficulty or restriction to implementing these AT guidelines involves several

areas. They include structural limitations involving cost, professional development, and

logistics. Looking at the cost, small elementary school districts often operate on a very

limited budget. This limited budget does not allow for extra support within a kindergarten

through twelfth grade school. Many of these schools must downsize their staff and

maximize the classroom population of students. School buses and classrooms are often

filled to maximum capacity. Additional cost limitations include the burden of elementary

staff teachers who must instruct all subject areas. Many elementary schools in Michigan

2

must have their students learn elementary art, music, and physical education, in addition

to the core academic curriculum, from a single general education teacher. The planning

time for this large list of daily tasks is immense. 

This huge commitment of time with educating all areas of learning directly

impacts the availability for professional educators to obtain professional development in

the areas of understanding and implementing AT. Many educators in these rural

elementary schools work long hours with copious teacher/student interactions throughout

the school day and are only able to access technology late in the evening. The logistics of

not having easily accessible technology throughout the school day for the IEP team

decision maker can be a constraint to the implementation of AT.

Legal mandates under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,

2004) for all students with an IEP requires that the IEP team determine if AT is to be

implemented or not. The need for quality educational AT services must be offered in an

effective, legal, ethical, and cost effective manner for all special education students

(Bowser & Reed, 2004).

The purpose of this project is to implement a user friendly heuristic tool for

participants of elementary IEP teams to use in order to facilitate the improved integration

of Assistive Technology into classrooms for special education students. The project

goals include an increased understanding of the mandated laws, an increase in awareness

of the availability of AT devices, and an increase in the knowledge of AT support

services. All of this is meant to develop a shared vision (Bowser & Reed, 2004) of AT

among all participants of an IEP team and their important role in the successful

determination of the use of AT for each individual special needs learner.

3

4

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

The Law

During the Individual Education Program (IEP) team decision making process;

there exist laws that provide parameters around certain specific decisions that are made

during each meeting. These laws are in place to ensure that decisions are made in

accordance to the contents of these laws. Edyburn, D. L., & Howery, K. (2014) discuss

how supplemental supports including assistive technology are often not implemented due

to budgetary and or education establishments of hierarchical priority influences.

One such decision during all IEP meetings is to determine if Assistive

Technology (AT) is a needed support for each learner with an Individual Education

Program (IEP). In other words, the intent is to understand the process of whom, how, and

why AT is to be decided by the IEP team.

Among the team participants, there should be an AT support person or a special

education teacher included that “should understand, and have the ability to explain, legal

issues associated with current AT legislation when developing transition plans for

individuals with disabilities" (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 19). Many IEP teams do

not have an AT support person on staff. This is a global view that demonstrates the

5

vision that all learners, including those with disabilities, are to become productive

citizens as a result of their education within our society.

In addition to a team member having a professional understanding of AT law, the

IEP team should also be aware that "educational law and policy generated from these

laws require that AT consideration be based upon evidence of AT effectiveness and that

claims of effectiveness arise from scientifically-based research" (Peterson-Karlan &

Parette, 2007, p. 130). This would make certain that the educational practice of AT

implementation relies on what has already been shown to work effectively within the

classroom.

What is assistive technology that is to be as applied to K-12 public schools?

There are laws that are currently in place that describe it. Some are specific to education,

the workplace, and public access, while others are all encompassing to all areas of life in

the United States. For example, one such explanation of the federal law is:

The Assistive Technology Act of 1998. This Act stipulated that further

development and use of AT has profound implications for improving the lives of

individuals with disabilities throughout the United States. It provided states with

additional funding to develop comprehensive AT programs and advocacy services

for individuals with disabilities (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 19).

These comprehensive programs most often are focused within a local ISD. They include

visual, hearing, occupational, and physical therapies that utilize AT tools within the

specialized instruction of specific IEP goals and objectives. An example of a visual AT

would be a document enlarger with a camera and a screen that would be located within

the classroom for the visually impaired student. Hearing impaired students may have to

6

their disposal a teacher microphone and speaker system. Occupational therapy and

physical therapy students may have devices to hold onto a pencil to support difficulties

with their fine motor skills.

To further explain AT, there is found within various government documents a

description of its physical properties. "Assistive technology device means any item,

piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf,

modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional

capabilities of a child with a disability (IDEA - Building).”

Additionally, the parameters of these procedures for professional staff are also

found in existing law. For example, "§ 300.324 Development, review, and revision of

IEP. (a) Development of IEP—(1) General. In developing each child’s IEP, the IEP Team

must consider. (v) Consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and

services (IDEA - Building).”

Additional rules exist for specific members of decision making team members

within Michigan law.

R 340.1781 Teachers of students with disabilities; endorsement requirements.

Rule 81.(1) A teacher seeking an endorsement or full approval by the department

shall meet all of the following requirements... (a) The requisite knowledge,

understanding skills, and dispositions for effective practice related to all of the

following: (iv) Assessing, implementing, and supporting all levels of assistive

technology for individual students(Michigan Administrative Rules for Special

Education (MARSE), n.d., p. 98).

7

There are also parameters within the law as to the method of curriculum design

and application of AT into the classroom setting of the individual special needs learner.

The “Assistive Technology Act of 1998 provides insights into developing instructional

units that incorporate AT utilizing the principles of Universal Design" (Marino, Marino,

& Shaw, 2006, p. 19). The overriding principles of Universal Design are that teachers

"need work that will develop greater empathy and self-understanding if they are to truly

understand how to cause learning" (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 19). Along with

this principle, there are “vital opportunities to make education more honest, invigorating,

and self-correcting for everyone” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 320). This second

principle counters the tendency for teachers to resist to adapting their instruction to the

learning needs of disabled students. Some teachers are “used to working alone and

thinking that smooth control of all that happens in their space, based on their habits, is

what matters most” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 320). In addition, the contributions

to universal design teach to the needs of the student while focusing on the individual

learning strengths to provide the greatest opportunity for educational benefit (Turnbull,

Turnbull, Shank, & Smith, 2004).

Assistive Technology Consideration

Consideration of AT into the learning environment of a learner with a disability is

also an important responsibility that ensures that AT support will be in place for the child

and will enhance their education. These considerations need to be guided. For example,

"in order to effectively guide IEP teams during the AT consideration process, special

education teachers must possess both a thorough understanding of AT resources and the

legislation governing their implementation" (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 19).

8

Sometimes assistive technology choices are hard to make. When considering learners

with similar disabilities, the application of different AT tools can be adapted in differing

ways into the learning environment. Appropriate application decisions of a various AT

tools is critical. (Bausch & Hasselbring, 2004). This understanding of AT application

comes from time spent during teacher preparation courses within various colleges of

education coupled with ongoing efforts to maintain an awareness of the latest trends

within the targeted domain of Assistive Technology.

Special educators often carry not only the responsibility of an awareness of the

current best practices of Assistive Technology, but also possess documents to support the

guidance of decisions for AT integration by the IEP teams. Coordination of the

completion of these support documents is vital. For example, “a special educator should

plan a meeting just to complete this form, or provide a copy to team members well in

advance of the meeting" (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 21). This will support the

decision making by IEP teams as they “identify whether specific skills such as decoding,

oral reading, letter identification, and comprehension are relative strengths or weaknesses

for the student” (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 22). This skill identification allows

for the correct AT tool to be applied within the individual’s learning environment. Within

these documents, evaluations by personnel that are qualified to observe the student

should be included. This is accomplished when "an assessment of the student's AT needs

within the context of the learning environment is complete, IEP teams can recommend

specific AT devices and services" (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 22). Collaboration

among team members must include the dissemination of these documents with a

9

thorough interpretation of the represented data. Collaboration should transpire during

meetings set for this purpose prior to the IEP meeting.

Using Assistive Technology

Guides are often used in many ways within a school setting. For example,

schools have student handbooks to guide student behaviors and expectations during the

school year, have school board policies in place that guide school personnel through

many facets of employment, and teachers have curriculum guides that provide a

framework to meet individual State curriculum standards.

IEP teams make important guiding decisions based on the curriculum and must be

prepared to utilize all available guides in making those decisions. While IEP teams look

at the capacities of each individual student, decisions are made that support deficits in

academic areas that most often include reading and math. Messinger-Willman and

Marino (2010) describe how scaffolding academic progress provides a means for the

student to circumvent barriers in literacy. First, adding the support of computer-based

applications will assist with reading disabilities to access grade-level text. Second, AT

will provide support for reading as an intervention tool (p. 9). This information supports

more widespread use of Ipad applications (Apps) that directly support reading disabilities

and are more and more common within districts that have AT support.

Best practices in teaching today often include technology integration as a

consistent component of lesson planning. Implementing the latest technologies into the

classroom of today allows for an increase in comprehension. Bowser and Reed (2004)

state, "another benefit of teaching with emerging technologies is the potential they hold

for crafting multisensory learning experiences, which is more akin to the way the brain is

10

wired to learn” (p. 7). For example, the Ipad presently allows for the visualization of

spoken language through speech to text apps and research shows its effectiveness.

Research has shown this to be highly effective with learning. Burton, Anderson, Prater,

& Dyches (2013) state that they had observed an abrupt change in student performance

each time they introduced the video. They assert that this data demonstrates the efficacy

of using visual stimuli to enhance skill acquisition when working with learners disabled

with autism and limited cognitive abilities.

Not only do learners better understand written language through Ipad integration

into the learning environment, but the acquisition of math skills are also better supported

through this assistive technology. Increasingly, "students are now able to access online

mathematics tools (e.g., using their iPhones, iPads, iPods) to further assist them in their

attempts at accessing the general education mathematics curriculum" (Brown, 2013, p.

55). Mathematics within education today focuses more on the real world application of

mathematics along with the need for acquiring the automaticity of mathematical

calculation. The barrier of math calculation automaticity is minimized with the advent of

calculation technologies with AT integration. This may include calculators, smart

phones, tablets, and Ipads and the focus now can be placed more on the understanding of

the purpose of mathematics and not so much on the process of mathematics.

This raises the issue of the merit or educational benefit of special education

services that persistently focus on the remediation of basic math calculation skills. If

educators feel that calculation automaticity is without exception, a life skill that must be

mastered by all general education students, then it slows down the educational process.

This outdated paradigm of math skill automaticity needs to be evaluated thoroughly.

11

Research by Bouch & Flanagan (2009) has shown that students with learning disabilities

make minimal progress in computation skills. They often show about one year's growth

for every two years of mathematics instruction. They are often less likely to pass basic

math assessments; and leave high school with about a fifth-grade mathematics skill level.

The time to integrate AT into the hands of learners that have a math calculation

disability is now. AT will provide them with promising educational experiences within

the classroom setting. This will also provide “increasing access to mathematical ideas and

helping them experience higher levels of success" (Bouch & Flanagan, 2009, p. 18). This

is often a prevailing thought among many educators that tend to emphasize the ability to

use a pencil to add and subtract is a skill that must occupy a significant portion of time

spent within the special education setting. For the person with disabilities, time spent

remediating math calculation deficits often is not an educational benefit and often hinders

their support needed to access the general education curriculum. Research by Van

Garderen, Thomas, Stormont, & Lembke (2013) has shown that with the advent of

calculators, the support for students with working memory deficits and/or processing

speed deficits provides them with the accuracy and speed required with facts and

computations. This enables them to access instruction in higher level critical thinking and

problem solving.

Therefore, the time spent in the special education setting remediating the

disability of math calculation should be focused on building familiarity and automaticity

with AT tools that are now in the hands of the general public each and every day.

Teaching with AT is a useful learning tool for students that is often shaped by

best teaching practice, emerging technology, and by existing law. As stated earlier, the

12

researched based educational model of Universal Design provides a substantial library of

examples with designing the general education curriculum and teaching to the specific

needs of a diverse learner. AT does support the effective access to general education

curriculum. In order to end the old-school practice of paper, pencil and ditto learning

models of the past, teachers must understand that the “ UDL framework helps educators

move beyond a “one size fits all” model of instruction, which can maximize the

educational benefits inherent in a diverse classroom community" (Messinger-Willman &

Marino, 2010, p. 8). When looking at the needs of a specific student, the classroom

teacher along with the IEP team need to view both the AT and UDL perspective. This

includes the understanding that the student will overcome their limitations and gain

access to instruction and assessment in meaningful ways (Messinger-Willman & Marino,

2010).

Decision Making Resources

With the many aspects of AT now in focus, the need for the guidance for

decision-makers is crucial. This guidance can be in the form of "information

technologies will need to be developed and/or sustained to insure access to such

information by educational and family consumers" (Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2007, p.

138). As the IEP team convenes and seeks AT guidance, they must also know that

"decision makers must examine available evidence-based practice reports and decide if

the reported intervention can be adapted to meet local circumstances” (Peterson-Karlan &

Parette, 2007, p. 138). These local circumstances may include budgetary, staffing, and

AT accessibility limits. Additionally, understanding the research behind the application

of AT is important as it relates to all of the education system stakeholders. "In today's

13

educational environments, demands for evidence-based practice in assistive technology

(AT) decision-making are being articulated with increasing frequency by administrators,

policy-makers, researchers, and classroom practitioners" (Peterson-Karlan & Parette,

2007, p. 130).

The whole child needs to be supported. This support includes an understanding

that AT can also support learner’s pre and post K-12 education. For example, Horn &

Kang (2012) state that “AT intervention, which includes the provision of individually

appropriate devices and instruction on the use of the device, has the potential to assist the

young child with multiple disabilities in successfully accessing and then engaging his or

her environment and thus, more readily attaining critical developmental milestones” (p.

247).

Employing Assistive Technology

The work of professionals that actively share their knowledge base of AT

interventions is essential to IEP team decision-making. Peterson-Karlan & Parette (2007)

say that IEP teams also need to be aware that many researchers in the field of AT are

often aligned with university settings. They value publications in peer-reviewed journals

and often seek new knowledge, particularly evidence-based findings. However, these

venues of research knowledge may not be effective for IEP team decision makers.

Unfortunately, this knowledge of peer reviewed research not always available to IEP

teams within many poorer school districts. This may be due to barriers of “time

constraints on the part of decision-makers intervention settings may be such that reading

professional journals is a low priority activity” (Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2007, p. 135).

These professionals include special education teachers and AT specialists. As another

14

limit or hindrance to knowledge exchange there exists "a critical shortage of AT

specialists who help IEP teams make decisions regarding assistive technology for

students with disabilities" (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 18). Ultimately, the

responsibility for the application of AT into the schema of the special needs learner lies

with the special educator. For example, when "a viable AT device has been identified, it

is the special educator's responsibility, unless otherwise noted, to ensure fidelity of AT

implementation” (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 22). Seldom does this take place in

unsupported districts. This is especially true when school special education teaching staff

have no comprehension of the multilayered facets of AT and perceive that any attempt of

ensuring this fidelity is not within their job description. Additionally, administrations are

often compelled to set special education issues toward the bottom of their administrative

agendas. This attitude of low priority then permeates into the general education staff and

in turn causes dissention when special educators attempt to follow laws tied to an IEP.

"Federal law mandates the consideration of AT when writing a student's IEP. It is the

special educator's responsibility to inform members of IEP teams about in the absence of

trained AT specialists." (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 24).

The consideration of AT for each disabled student by law, must be a part of IEP

team decision making. Teams need to be informed and this can be facilitated by

completing the following tasks:

First, they can explain the definitional issues that surround AT and provide team

members with concrete examples of AT that pertain to the student. Second, they

should examine the student's current functional level. Third, they must identify

available accommodations, modifications, and AT that promote access to the

15

general education curriculum. Fourth, they should oversee the documentation,

implementation, and assessment of AT. Finally, they need to advocate for the

types of AT that meet the student’s needs while providing the greatest potential

for student success” (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006, p. 18).

It is unlikely that poorer schools with a lack of resources know of these mandated steps

that must be followed in order to comply with law.

Becoming informed as to AT within an education setting often falls under the

umbrella of professional development (PD) activities. Professional development agendas

are often established by administrators that value general education curriculum

effectiveness over special education issues like AT. Additionally, administrators must

work within the constraints of a busy school calendar. For example, many “teachers have

limited time to explore, experiment, and study AT and UDL integration. Some school

districts use top-down professional development models, which fail to produce consistent

change over time. This leads to nonexistent, inconsistent, or inadequate support for

educators” (Messinger-Willman & Marino, 2010, p. 10). When AT is actually offered as

PD, it is often given low priority and minimal time. "Oftentimes when AT professional

development is offered, it attempts to include too much information during a limited

amount of time" (Messinger-Willman & Marino, 2010, p. 10). Often, the design of

learning within the PD itself follows the outdated handout and lecture format and real

change in the classroom rarely takes place.

16

Chapter 3

Methodology

Contents of the Project

The contents of this project attend to the goal of providing a guide to better

understand the mandated assistive technology (AT) laws. The contents will also address

the availability of traditional and cutting-edge AT devices and provide a knowledge base

of AT support services. This information will be updated regularly within a World Wide

Web Moodle page that will contain many resources from many sources. It will be

available for local districts and their IEP teams to use when considering AT decisions

within an ISD.

The project guide will include a checklist for AT consideration during an IEP

meeting along with active links to two significant resources that will provide sufficient

support to the team consideration process. The content will include a hyperlink to the

local ISD AT referral document. This document will provide the team with guiding

language for consideration as decisions are made for the application of AT. In addition,

the content will include with permission access to the Michigan Integrated Technology

Supports resource site that will provide the most recent best practice information for AT

decision making (L. Taylor, Personal communication, November 11, 2013).

Application of the Project

The purpose of this project is to create and implement of a usable guide on

Assistive Technology (AT) to be used in a small rural school district. This guide will

17

include the use of livebinders.com with the ability to share the document for internal use

only by the district personnel. Filling a known void in an educational system with

corrective, problem solving initiative is to the writer’s understanding, a worthwhile and

productive endeavor. Understanding the law directing the integration of AT into the IEP

process from all aspects of consideration will assist administration, special education

teachers, intermediate school district personnel, and IEP team members. The intended

use of this guide is for IEP team access to allow for informed decisions as to the

individual need of Assistive Technology as it applies to each individual special needs

student. This guide will facilitate the IEP team in developing ideas and options for each

individual student and will answer the question of how a guide to facilitate assistive

technology decision processes for Individual Education Program (IEP) teams within a

rural school district. It is my hope that this AT guides will assist in filling this void.

18

Chapter 4

The Project

The setting of the Assistive Technology Guide will exist on a public domain web

site URL within an ISD Moodle interface. http://moodle.manistee.org/course/view.php?

id=1043. The participants using this guide will include present and future IEP team

members in a school within the Manistee ISD. The data sources for this Guide will come

from current AT professionals within the local ISD and within Michigan’s Integrated

Technology Supports web resource pages. The procedures for the use of this Assistive

Technology Guide will be described within the content of the site. This will include an

introduction, a review of the law and literature, methodology used, details of the project,

and conclusions with recommendations.

What follows are the content of the guide as is presently published. The content

is under continuous revision as technology updates occur and best practices for AT

implementation and communication present itself. This guide provides the resources that

IEP teams need to accomplish the task of AT consideration to AT implementation.

(Edyburn, 2003) It also gives access to the approved form within the district for

Assistive Technology implementation. Lastly, it provides a wealth of AT information

that already is in place on the Internet. The content of these resource pages have been

19

approved by the Michigan’s Integrated Technology Supports (see appendix A) and the

Manistee ISD (see appendix B).

During the process of creating and implementing this project, the writer was

recognized by the Manistee ISD Special Education Superintendent for efforts in

supporting special education with technology. The writer was offered and did accept a

position as an Assistive Technology Representative of the Special Education Director's

Region 1, Northern workgroup (KND, 2014). The responsibilities of this position

correlate directly to the goals of this project which are to understand mandated laws,

increase in awareness of the availability of AT devices, and an increase in the knowledge

of AT support services. This position will provide all necessary approvals for

maintaining, revising, and updating the content of this project.

20

This first image (screenshot) shows the image of the web presence on a Moodle

site. This shows the location of the project as listed under the first item titled Assistive

Technology Resources for IEP Team Use. Its web URL is:

http://moodle.manistee.org/course/view.php?id=1043 This screenshot shows the Home

Page of the project containing icons that link to an introduction, AT law, AT

consideration, AT tools, applications and checklists, and guide resources and documents.

The page contains a link to a forum specifically designated to this project. Questions and

suggestions may be posted in forum by the webmaster (project author) and the World

Wide Web user. The page may be navigated at the top or the bottom of the page. All

images and icons were cited from and found within the contents of the project.

21

The second image shows a biographical page with a purpose statement. In

addition, the page contains information as to the origins of the content of the project

22

The third image of this Assistive Technology Guide shows the information within

the contents of the guide that reference law. Links are provided to give information of

AT definition, FAPE, and legislation. Additional links are in place to provide an

overview of AT law through a slide presentation and a direct link to the law section under

the US Department of Education.

23

The next screenshot provides IEP team decision guidance through flowcharts and

documents. These documents include information specific to the parent or guardian on

the team along with a myriad of consideration information through the Michigan’s

Integrated Technology Supports Consideration Resource for AT page.

24

The page titled AT Tools provides links to multiple resources provided by MITS. These

resources focus on both the available AT tools along with numerous data collection tools.

25

The page titled Applications and Checklists provide a wealth of information about the

setting of the Assistive Technology. This includes dealing with the issues of inclusion

and the curriculum. Lastly, a simple IEP Team checklist is provided for teams to work

through before, during, and after the AT decision process.

26

The last page of the project provides a template for local use when referring students for

supplemental aid services through the local Intermediate School District. Additionally, a

link is given to the Michigan’s Integrated Technology Supports main web site along with

their purpose statement. Within this site are resources for professional development

opportunities.

27

The page showing the Professional Development information is shown in this image.

28

Template

CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY MULTIDISCIPLINARY EVALUATION REPORTNOT FOR SECONDARY RELEASE

NAME: SCHOOL:

GRADE/TEACHER: DISTRICT:

BIRTH DATE: CHRONOLOGICAL AGE:

PARENT: EVALUATOR(S):

TELEPHONE:

ADDRESS:

Reason for Referral

Sources of Information

What: Completed By: Date:

Background Information Start writing here

Social/Emotional EvaluationParent Input

Family Constellation

Developmental History

Health History

Primary Concern

Current Functioning

Rating Scales

Educational History and Current Functioning

Teacher Input

Rating Scales

Observation

29

Student Input

Student was observed by the school social worker on May 5th, 2011.

Psycho-educational EvaluationBehavioral ObservationsSchool Psychologist Observations

Teacher Consultant Observations

Intellectual FunctioningThe NAME OF TEST HERE was administered by the school psychologist on DATE. Average standard scores range between 90 and 110, and average scale scores fall between 8 and 12.

Academic Test InterpretationThe Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-II was administered by the teacher consultant/school psychologist on

Occupational TherapyOn DATE the occupational therapist assessed Xxx.

Speech & Language EvaluationThe NAME OF TEST HERE was administered by the speech-language pathologist on DATE.

ArticulationStart Writing Here

LanguageStart Writing Here

Pragmatics & BehaviorStart Writing Here

Teacher InputStart Writing Here

Assistive TechnologyThe StudentWhat are the student’s special needs?What are the student’s current abilities?

The EnvironmentWhat materials and equipment are currently available in the environment?What is the physical arrangement?Any particular concerns?What is the instructional arrangement?Are there likely to be changes?What supports are available to the people supporting the student?

The TaskWhat activities take place in the environment?What activities support the student’s curriculum?What are the critical elements of the activities?

30

How might the activities be modified to accommodate the student’s special needs?How might technology support the student’s active participation in those activities?

The ToolWhat strategies might be used to invite increased student performance?What no-tech, low-tech, and high-tech options should be considered when developing a system for a student with these needs and abilities doing these tasks in these environments? How might these tools be tried out with the student in the customary environments in which they will be used?

Summary Psycho-educationalStart writing here

Occupational TherapyStart Writing Here

Social Work Start Writing Here

Speech & LanguageStart Writing Here

Assistive TechnologyStart Writing Here

Eligibility StatementStart Writing Here

SuggestionsStart Writing Here

Your Name & Letters School PsychologistPhone: XXXX XXXX ext. XXXXXXXX Intermediate School District

Your Name & Letters Your TitlePhone: XXXX XXXX ext. XXXXXXXX Intermediate School District

Your Name & Letters Your TitlePhone: XXXX XXXX ext. XXXXXXXX Intermediate School District

Your Name & Letters Your TitlePhone: XXXX XXXX ext. XXXXXXXX Intermediate School District

31

Chapter 5

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations

This final chapter of this project contains the authors reflections on conclusions,

recommendations, and limitations experienced during the process of creating this work. 

Conclusions

The major conclusion that the author can articulate is that this project allowed for

significant discoveries to be placed into the mind of the author. These discoveries

included uncovering a significant void within the understanding of assistive technology

and it's application. This was especially true within my own school district. In addition,

there existed a lack of accountability or corrective measures to ensure compliance within

the IEP document. The author considers himself to be proficient in understanding and

applying special education law. Yet, when this project was initiated and the content of it

was researched, even the most experienced assistive technology specialists conveyed

similar words of concern. This included an awareness of a void in applying assistive

technology decision-making and accountability into the IEP process. This was especially

noted within the initial email permission request to Laura Taylor of MITS. She

responded in her email to the author by stating her experience with working the process

of completing an IEP. She said that whenever she convened an IEP her team would not

check the box in the PLAAFP statement saying that they did consider assistive

technology until they had finished going through all of the supplementary aids, goals, and

32

objectives. Only then would the team go back and answer if Assistive Technology had

been considered.

This example from Laura Taylor transitions well into the most significant

conclusion that this author considers to be the most important finding during the process

of creating this project. This has to do with the question itself on the IEP. It is a short

question. It only asks if assistive technology was considered. The most important finding

of this entire project is that this question needs to be answered yes and the affirmative

answer needs to be supported with a significant effort in determining the answer.

Edyburn (2002) states that this question is seldom asked. There is even a bold statement

on the page within the essay from the perspective of an illiterate adult student that leaves

school and asks a similar question. “If the instructional and remediation efforts of all of

my teachers have failed to teach me to read, will I be provided with compensatory tools

that allow me to access the meaning of text that I cannot read by myself?” As for math,

Edyburn (2002) goes on to state that "we would not have secondary students unable to

solve math problems because they never mastered their basic math facts."  A Calculator

would have been introduced into the students learning environment as a compensatory

strategy with expectations associated with higher level math achievement. Without this

use of a calculator as assistive technology, the student would not be able to perform at the

high achievement level of their peers. The essay goes on to state that it is common for

struggling students to drop out of school due to their lack of ability to engage the

curriculum at the same level of their peers. In other words, the never ending cycle of

remediation increased the dropout rates for students.

33

Recommendations

Reflecting on the past, the author feels fortunate to have been involved with the

integrations of new technologies even prior to the beginnings of the World Wide Web.

These technology integrations included experience with some of the first Apple and IBM

computers. For educators of the author’s age that have not had a background in

technology, it is a very difficult task to acquire and to seek the assistive technology

vocabulary and best practice experience. For the present, the author recommends that

assistive technology needs to be promoted through various methods. These methods

include utilizing the Internet and online learning. To promote online learning experiences

and assistive technology, the author suggests that merit pay and effective teacher ratings

be tied to the number of hours spent on assistive technology and accompanying

curriculum of Universal Design for Learning. Learnport.org, a Michigan Virtual

University resource provides professional development curriculum for understanding and

implementing assistive technology. For the future, the author recommends that the

vendors of assistive technology visit and showcase their products in schools. This visit

would allow for hands on interactions with the products and opportunities for inquiry to

their use and implementation. This has been a common practice selling tools to

mechanics in automotive repair shops across our country for many years. Assistive

Technology tools should be sold in the same manner.

Limitations

This project focused on assistive technology. One of the significant limitations

that the author sees among his own peers is the lack of technology. This lack of

technology is mostly due to funding issues. Many of my fellow teachers do not have

34

access to the Internet within their own homes. These teachers cannot afford to purchase

Internet access even on a phone. Within the state of Michigan, funding cuts to education

have caused many teachers to be receiving less overall income then they had received a

decade ago. With the cost-of-living and many of the medical expenses now being shifted

to educators, the cost of Internet access is unattainable. In addition to the lack of

technology, there exists the reality that much of the technology within education is

outdated. The computers that the author’s district uses for students presently utilize the

XP computing platform which no longer is supported by Microsoft. Another reality of

known limitation to this project has to do with the time it takes to learn and become

informed to the decision-making process of assistive technology for individual special

needs learners. Many hours are spent during noninstructional time before and after school

with educators that are involved in many of the needed supports for students. These

include sports activities, tutoring activities, and lesson planning. The author’s own school

has eliminated prep time during the school day. The last limitation, that the author wishes

to convey, deals with the depth of content within this assistive technology guide project.

In reality, the content of this project is often evanescent. The author realizes that there are

unnumbered resources of support to assistive technology, the majority of which the

author has no knowledge of. The author has gained knowledge during the process of

creating this project. Unfortunately, IEP team members may not have a similar

availability of time and effort to gain a similar level of knowledge.

In conclusion, this assistive technology project is in its beginning stages and will

need to be maintained to ensure that current technology and practice is updated regularly.

35

The limitations of this guide will continue through a lack of understanding, a lack of

time, a lack of professional development opportunities, and apathy that is often the focus

toward special education programs.

36

REFERENCES

Bausch, M. E., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2004). Assistive technology: Are the necessary

skills and knowledge being developed at the preservice and inservice levels?

Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education

Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 27(2), 97-104. doi:

10.1177/088840640402700202

Blank FinalJoint-AT report (Rep.). (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2013, from

http://www.manistee.org/a/manistee.org/manistee-isd/documents-and-forms/

special-education-documents-forms

Bouch, E. C., & Flanagan, S. (2009). Assistive technology and mathematics: What is

there and where can we go in special education? Journal Of Special Education

Technology, 24(2), 17-30.

Bowser, G., & Reed, P. R. (2004). A school administrator's desktop guide to assistive

technology. Arlington, VA: Technology and Media Division, Council for

Exceptional Children.

Bowser, G., & Reed, P. n.d. (2013). Assistive Technology Pointers for Parents : A

strategy for working with schools. Pointers for Parents Web.pdf. Retrieved from

http://www.uwyo.edu/wind/_files/docs/watr/pointers%20for%20parents

%20web.pdf

37

Brown, M. R. (2013). Mathematics, secondary students with disabilities, and web 2.0

technologies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(1), 54-58. doi:

10.1177/1053451213480032

Burton, C. E., Anderson, D. H., Prater, M. A., & Dyches, T. T. (2013). Video self-

modeling on an iPad to teach functional math skills to adolescents with autism

and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental

Disabilities, 28(2), 67-77. Retrieved November 8, 2013, from

http://foa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/67

Cropped-blogbanner.jpg [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2013, from

http://wp.vcu.edu/assistivetechnolgy/files/2012/08/cropped-blogbanner.jpg

Edyburn, D. (2002). Remediation vs. compensation: A critical decision point in assistive

technology consideration: An Essay by Dave L. Edyburn. [online]

anzatresearch.wikispaces.com. Available at:

http://anzatresearch.wikispaces.com/file/view/Edyburn+2002RemediationvsComp

ensation.pdf [Accessed 10 Jul. 2014].

Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Learning from text. Special Education Technology Practice, 5(2),

16-27. pdf

Edyburn, D. L., & Howery, K. (2014). How is Technology Used to Support Instruction in

Inclusive Schools?. Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools: Research and

Practice, 170.

38

G, Dr. (n.d.). Assistive Technologies. Retrieved from

http://www.bagtheweb.com/b/nkBpG

G, Dr. (n.d.). Untitled image.jpg [Digital image]. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from

https://bagtheweb.s3.amazonaws.com/images/Bag/30472/pictures/large.jpeg?

1372253418

Horn, E., & Kang, J. (2012). Supporting young children with multiple disabilities: What

do we know and what do we still need to learn? Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education, 31(4), 241-248. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from

http://tec.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/241

IDEA - Building The Legacy of IDEA 2004. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2013, from

http://idea.ed.gov/

"KND Reduces Staff Due to Budget Constraints." KND Reduces Staff Due to Budget Constraints |

Manistee News. 10 June 2014. Web.

<http://news.pioneergroup.com/manisteenews/2014/06/10/knd-reduces-staff-due-budget-

constraints/>.

Logo-new.jpg [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2013, from

http://mits.cenmi.org/Portals/4/Skins/mitsSkinV2/images/logo-new.jpg

Marino, M. T., Marino, E. C., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Making informed assistive

technology decisions for students with high incidence disabilities. TEACHING

Exceptional Children, 38(6), 18-25. Retrieved November 8, 2013, from http://0-

search.proquest.com.libcat.ferris.edu/docview/815955810?accountid=10825

39

Messinger-Willman, J., & Marino, M. T. (2010). Universal design for learning and

assistive technology: Leadership considerations for promoting inclusive education

in today's secondary schools. NASSP Bulletin, 94(1), 5-16. doi:

10.1177/0192636510371977

Michigan Department of Education. (n.d.). Michigan Administrative Rules for Special

Education (MARSE). Retrieved November 9, 2013, from

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/MARSE_Supplemented_with_IDEA_

Regs_379598_7.pdf

Oregon Department of Education. (n.d.). Oregon Technology Access Program - OTAP.

Retrieved November 8, 2013, from http://www.otap-oregon.org/Documents/AT

%20Model%20Operating%20Guidelines.pdf

Parent and Educator Guide for Assistive Technology (AT). (n.d.). Home MITS -

Technology Assistance for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from

http://mits.cenmi.org/

Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Parette, H. P. (2007). Evidence-based practice and the

consideration of assistive technology: Effectiveness and outcomes. Assistive

Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 4(1), 130-139. Retrieved November 8, 2013,

from http://0-search.proquest.com.libcat.ferris.edu/docview/762477256?

accountid=10825

Smoking Gavel [Icon]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2013, from

http://31.media.tumblr.com/avatar_99da279da051_96.png

40

Taylor, L. (2012, April 13). Assistive Technology Resources - LiveBinder. Assistive

Technology Resources - LiveBinder. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from

http://www.livebinders.com/play/play?id=370196

Taylor, L. (2013, November 11). My Masters Project [E-mail to the author].

Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., & Smith, S. (2004). Exceptional lives: Special

education in today's schools (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

University, F. By Penn State (2011, May 17). Assistive tech law. Assistive Tech Law.

Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.slideshare.net/SFecich/assistive-tech-

law

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (n.d.). IDEA -

Building The Legacy of IDEA 2004. Retrieved November 8, 2013, from

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home

Useful Websites - Michigan Region IV Assistive Technology Consortium.png [Digital

image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2013, from

http://miregioniv.weebly.com/useful-websites.html

Van Garderen, D., Thomas, C. N., Stormont, M., & Lembke, E. S. (2013). An overview

of principles for special educators to guide mathematics instruction. Intervention

in School and Clinic, 48(3), 131-141. Retrieved November 8, 2013, from

http://isc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/48/3/131

41

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

42

APPENDICES

A. Letter of permission to use the MITS Live Binder as a resource in the KND

Assistive Technology Guide Project

43

44

45

B. Letter of permission to use the Manistee ISD CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTIVE

TECHNOLOGY MULTIDISCIPLINARY EVALUATION REPORT template as a

resource in the KND Assistive Technology Guide Project.