Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits



Download 415.06 Kb.
Page8/17
Date14.05.2017
Size415.06 Kb.
#18022
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   17


echnology was present during the pre-implementation phase, students waited for the device to appear in front of them or for a direct prompt from an adult before they used the device. By the end of the project, more students were seeking out and using the devices without prompting and all students demonstrated generally increased levels of engagement.

Activities in MEville to WEville also promoted the development of social relationships with their peers in special and general education. One activity that appeared to be particularly successful involved the students using switch-adapted cameras and scripted conversations programmed on a sequential message communication device to take photos of and interact with people around the school. These scripted conversations enabled the students to interact without adult support, and they promoted sustained, successful interactions between the research participants and peers throughout the school. The teachers realized the benefits of these scripted conversations, and created many more scripts for the students to use across a variety of circumstances, for example, when the students went to buddy reading in the general education classrooms or when they responded to questions about their project in the school science fair.


Discussion


The analysis of the classroom observation data suggests several factors that likely contributed to the positive student outcomes that were directly observed and measures. For example, MEville to WEville supported interactions and collaboration between home and school for many of the students. The program provides teachers with notes to send home. The notes (“homework sheets” as the teachers called them) encouraged families to share important information about their child with their classrooms and to send in photos and materials related to upcoming lessons. As these notes began coming back in, one teacher noted, “Children are actually bringing back some of their homework for this unit and there is an overall increase in parental interest. Look at the homework sheets for each child on the chalkboard”. While the children in the study lacked the ability to direct their parents to read, complete, or return the notes, they certainly benefited from them. Their teachers were able to relate the new information they were learning at school to the information provided by their parents. Furthermore, access to the personally meaningful materials and photos their parents sent to school likely increased interest and understanding during the lessons.

Integrating Assistive Technologies


For the teachers, implementing the program meant that they did not have to spend large amounts of time creating their own lessons and materials. Instead, they were able to focus their energy on addressing the assistive technology needs of their students. One teacher in particular had previous experience using the technologies, but prior to MEville to WEville had found it very difficult to find the time to integrate the technology into the classroom routine. About half way through the project she shared, “I have also been able to spend a little more time on the cool stuff - like the Book Worm, switch [activated] digital camera, preparing communication boards, and preparing IntelliTools [IntelliPics® Studio and IntelliTalk® II by IntelliTools, Inc.] and am excited about using this assistive technology more and more over the next few months”. The observed integration of assistive technologies into a variety of lessons and interactions is also likely to have contributed to the positive outcomes demonstrated by the students.

Conclusion


During a time when we are all being pushed to provide instruction that is scientifically supported, empirical evidence demonstrating the positive outcomes of a comprehensive instructional program for students with the most significant cognitive impairments should be embraced. Caution must be taken in interpreting the results of this study as the gains are modest at best, but they are gains that have a practical significance for a group of student participants who have had as many as 9 years of school with little to no literacy learning success. In fact, the majority of the student participants experience cognitive and communication impairments that are so complex that they have had limited success with learning even basic communication and interaction skills. Any program that yields measurable positive outcomes with this group of 23 very hard-to-teach students is a program worthy of further implementation and investigation.

References


Bogden, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130-153.

Brown, L., & Perlmutter, L. (1971). Teaching functional reading to trainable level retarded students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 6, 74-84.

Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey: Of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dorry, G. W. (1976). Attentional model for the effectiveness of fading in training reading vocabulary with retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 271-279.

Dorry, G.W., & Zeaman, D. (1973). The use of a fading technique in paired associate teaching of a reading vocabulary with retardates. Mental Retardation, 11(6), 3-6.

Dorry, G.W., & Zeaman, D. (1975). Teaching a simple reading vocabulary to retarded children: Effectiveness of fading and non-fading procedures. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 711-716.

Erickson, K. A., & Hanser, G. (2002). The adolescent literacy learning link: An alternative teaching approach. Paper presented that the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Odense, Denmark.

Erickson, K. A., Koppenhaver, D. A., & Yoder, D. E. (1994). Literacy and adults with developmental disabilities (TR94-15). Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Erickson, K. A., Koppenhaver, D. A., Yoder, D. E., & Nance, J. (1997). Integrated communication and literacy instruction for a child with multiple disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 142-150.

Fabry, B. D., Mayhew, G. L., & Hanson, A. (1984). Incidental teaching of mentally retarded students within a token system. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(1), 29-36.

Farmer, J. A., Gast, D. C., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). Small group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of observational learning. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 190-201.

Favell, J. E., Favell, J. E., & McGimsey, J. F. (1978). Relative effectiveness and efficiency of group vs. individual training of severely retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 104-109.

Gipe, J., Duffy, C. A., & Richards, J. C. (1993). Helping a non-speaking adult male with cerebral palsy achieve literacy. Journal of Reading, 36, 380-389.

Hedrick, W. B., Katims, D., & Carr, N. J. (1999). Implementing a multi-method, multi-level literacy program for students with mild to moderate mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Delays, 14, 231-239.

Howell, R., Erickson, K., Stanger, C., & Wheaton, J. (2000). Evaluation of a computer-based program on the reading performance of first grade students with potential for reading failure. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 5-14.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The evaluation handbook (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Katims, D. S. (1991). Emergent literacy in early childhood special education: Curriculum and instruction. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(1), 69-84.

Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 3-15.

Koppenhaver, D., Spadorcia, S., & Harrison, M. (1998, March). Section II: Reading comprehension research for students with low incidence disabilities. In R. Gersten, J. Williams, L. Fuchs, S. Baker, D. Koppenhaver, S. Spadorcia, & M. Harrison (Eds.), Improving reading comprehension for children with disabilities: A review of research. Draft final report prepared for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Merriam, S. B (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sensenig, L. D., Mazeika, E. J., & Topf, B. (1989). Sign language facilitation of reading with students classified as trainable mentally handicapped. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 121-125.

National Reading Panel. (1998). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read.  Retrieved August 26, 2004, from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/publications.htm

Rand Corporation. (2004). Reading for understanding: Toward a program in reading comprehension. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://www.rand.org/ multi/achievementforall/reading/readreport.html

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children: Executive Summary. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://stills.nap.edu/html/prdyc/



Download 415.06 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   17



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
full range
central role
knowledge base
state level
simple fact
recognition that