Assessment models assistive technology
- 1. Assessment Models Assistive Technology A comparison between educational assessment practices and selected models of the assistive technology by MJ. Maxwell
- 3. Assessment A group of activities conducted to determine a child’s specific needs.
- 4. Who Makes The Decision?
- 5. Multiple Environments AT use in the school-or in any environment-is only as effective as the assessment of the learners in their multiple environments. Effective AT assessment leads to finding devices that build on the strengths of the learners in their various environments in order to improve the weaknesses in their environments.
- 6. AT assessment means: Beginning with the learners and their multiple life environments, finding where the environments affect the learners in troublesome ways, and then looking for a device (or devices) that lessen that impact by building on the learner's strengths.
- 8. Successful or Not? AT assessment for school is successful if it finds a device or devices that will be useful to the learner in multiple school environments. AT assessment is not successful if it provides a prescription for a device that the learner does not find useful, which is likely to be abandoned.
- 9. Purpose The purpose of AT assessment is to find ways to meet the needs of the learners by matching the strengths and weaknesses of the learner to the device.
- 10. Objective to keep the learner's strengths and abilities at the forefront of the assessment to use these to ameliorate potential difficulties in the classroom.
- 11. Bells and Whistles?? If the assessor loses sight of the learner and becomes too enamored of "gee-whiz" technology - for example, voice-activated devices - then the learner is no longer at the center of the assessment process and may not find much of a functional use for the AT device.
- 13. The learner 1. What purposeful motoric movement does the individual have? 2. How willing is the learner in trying new activities or tasks? 3. What does the learner desire from the use of AT? 4. What supports will the learner require in using the device?
- 14. The learner cont: 5. What level of training will the learner and others who interact with the learner need? 6. What impact will the learner's socioeconomic status and cultural background have on the use of AT?
- 16. The school environment 1. How do the teachers of learners using AT present information to the learners? 2. What is the preferred learning-teaching interaction style of the classroom-a cooperative learning style, an individualized style, project driven, or small independent and dependent groups?
- 17. Environment cont: 3. What is the primary method of assessment in the classroom? 4. How receptive is the teacher to having a learner who uses AT in the classroom? 5. What is the physical structure of the classroom and school?
- 19. The devices 1. How durable is the device? 2. How easy is the device to update and/or repair? 3. What is the willingness of the vendor of the device to provide a trial or loaner period of use for the learner? 4. What is the general reputation of the company in terms of construction, service, training, and reliability?
- 20. Devices cont: 5. Does the AT user have the psychomotor skills needed to use the device in a functional manner where benefit is gained. 6. Is the device aesthetically acceptable to the learner?
- 21. Devices cont: 7. Will the device meet the needs of the individual in the school environment in a manner that is easily understood by those who interact with the learner? 8. How portable is the device?
- 23. Chambers’ model contains a series of open-ended questions arranged in a flowchart configuration. The initial question addresses the student’s needs within the educational program from a deficit perspective. The model facilitates documentation of the consideration process, and supports evidence gathering as the team attempts to answer each question.
- 24. Lifespace Access Profile for Individuals with Severe or Multiple Disabilities The purpose is to provide a “client-centered, team-based collection of observations that point to next steps in a comprehensive program utilizing technology” Target audience for the LAP is those with severe/profound disabilities.
- 25. LAP cont: The LAP consists of an assessment protocol that evaluates the individual’s current abilities across five domains: Physical Resources, Cognitive Resources, Emotional Resources, Support Resources, and Environmental Analysis.
- 26. MTP Model The Matching Person and Technology (MPT) model considers users’ expectations, preferences, background, family and environmental influences, and economic factors in the determination of appropriate AT
- 27. Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative The WATI targets school-age children with disabilities and school districts. It provides both the process as well as specific guides relevant to the 10 sections of the model. The outcomes of the WATI assessment process focus on consideration of AT in the IEP and that the student receives AT devices and services needed to access the curriculum and meet IEP/IFSP goals and objectives.
- 28. Education Tech Points model based on a process associated with the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services. The developers of the model propose that the model integrates AT into the special education service delivery process.
- 29. SETT framework focuses the attention of the individualized education plan team on four explicit areas: (1) the student, (2) the student’s environment, (3) the tasks required for active participation in the environment, (4) the tools (AT) that enable student to access environments, participate, and gain skills or enhance performance.
- 30. SETT cont: A series of questions in each of the four areas are intended to stimulate thought, promote dialogue and consensus among team members, and guide the decision- making process.
- 31. Unifying Functional Model Places emphasis on the interrelationships among numerous dynamic elements, including; 1. home and school environments, 2.the student’s personal perceptions, and 3.resources available to the student. All of the elements guide the functional response of the school team.
- 33. Try it out Once the process of information gathering is complete and device possibilities have been decided on, it is time to introduce the learner to the device in the learner's various environments. AT assessment leads to device selection, but only after the learner has tried the devices in as many possible environments as the learner frequents.
- 34. Who’s reality is it? The learner's reality, not the assessment team's, ultimately determines device selection and utility. Learners may not select the "best" device from a technological point of view. Nevertheless, they will select devices that give them what they want in their lives, and understanding this is the key to AT assessment.
- 35. Comparative analysis A comparative analysis of the models reveals both similarities and differences. They share an ultimate goal – to match a person to the most effective AT that will meet his/her needs within the environments in which it will be used. All models in some capacity explore and assess the person, the environments, and the tasks for which the technology is needed.
- 36. Comparison cont: Each model emphasizes the process of assessment. A multidisciplinary, collaborative team approach is strongly emphasized in all models. They all follow an ecological, functional assessment approach. The SETT, ETP, LAP, and WATI are primarily designed for AT assessment within school settings.
- 37. Comparison cont: The SETT and LAP programs could easily be adapted for adults and non-school settings, the ETP and WATI less so. “In some ways, a comparative analysis of these models is a bit like the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges. Evaluated separately, they each have specific characteristics, strengths, and emphases. Taken together, they make a good fruit salad!”
- 38. References Watts, Emily H.; O'Brian, Mary; Wojcik, Brian W.; Journal of Special Education Technology, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 43-56 Publication Date: Winter 2004 Bromley, Barbara E., Ph.D. Home Modification Resources College of Education and Integrative Studies Cal Poly Pomona bbromley@csupomona.edu
- 39. References cont: Beigel ,Andrew R. (2000) Assistive Technology Assessment: More Than the Device, SUNY New Paltz, OMB 208, New Paltz, NY 12561; e mail: beigel@npum.newpaltz.edu
Editor's Notes
- #2: A comparison between educational assessment practices and selected models of the assistive technology
- #6: AT use in the school-or in any environment-is only as effective as the assessment of the learners in their multiple environments. Effective AT assessment leads to finding devices that build on the strengths of the learners in their various environments in order to ameliorate the weaknesses in their environments.
- #7: AT assessment does not mean finding a device and then matching it with the learner and the environment. It means beginning with the learners and their multiple life environments, finding where the environments affect the learners in troublesome ways, and then looking for a device (or devices) that mitigate that impact by building on the learner's strengths.
- #9: AT assessment for school is successful if it finds a device or devices that will be useful to the learner in multiple school environments. AT assessment is not successful if it provides a prescription for a device that the learner does not find useful, which is likely to be abandoned. Thus, the purpose of AT assessment is to find ways to meet the needs of the learners by matching the strengths and weaknesses of the learner to the device.
- #11: The objective during the assessment process is to keep the learner's strengths and abilities at the forefront of the assessment and to use these to ameliorate potential difficulties in the classroom.
- #12: If the assessor loses sight of the learner and becomes too enamored of "gee-whiz" technology - for example, voice-activated devices - then the learner is no longer at the center of the assessment process and may not find much of a functional use for the AT device.
- #14: 1. What purposeful motoric movement does the individual have? 2. How willing is the learner in trying new activities or tasks? 3. What does the learner desire from the use of AT? 4. What supports will the learner require in using the device?
- #15: 5. What level of training will the learner and others who interact with the learner need? 6. What impact will the learner's socioeconomic status and cultural background have on the use of AT?
- #17: 1. How do the teachers of learners using AT present information to the learners? 2. What is the preferred learning-teaching interaction style of the classroom-a cooperative learning style, an individualized style, project driven, or small independent and dependent groups? 3. What is the primary method of assessment in the classroom?
- #18: 4. How receptive is the teacher to having a learner who uses AT in the classroom? 5. What is the physical structure of the classroom and school?
- #20: 1. How durable is the device? 2. How easy is the device to update and/or repair? 3. What is the willingness of the vendor of the device to provide a trial or loaner period of use for the learner? 4. What is the general reputation of the company in terms of construction, service, training, and reliability?
- #21: 5. Does the AT user have the psychomotor skills needed to use the device in a functional manner where benefit is gained, or merely on an operational level where the learner can turn the device on and off? 6. Is the device aesthetically acceptable to the learner?
- #22: 7. Will the device meet the needs of the individual in the school environment in a manner that is transparent or easily understood by those who interact with the learner? 8. How portable is the device?
- #24: contains a series of open-ended questions arranged in a flowchart configuration. The initial question addresses the student’s needs within the educational program from a deficit perspective. The model facilitates documentation of the consideration process, and supports evidence gathering as the team attempts to answer each question.
- #25: The purpose of the Lifespace Access Profile for Individuals with Severe or Multiple Disabilities (LAP) is to provide a “client-centered, team-based collection of observations that point to next steps in a comprehensive program utilizing technology” The target audience for the LAP is primarily those with severe/profound disabilities. The LAP consists of an assessment protocol that evaluates the individual’s current abilities across five domains: Physical Resources, Cognitive Resources, Emotional Resources, Support Resources, and Environmental Analysis.
- #27: The Matching Person and Technology (MPT) model considers users’ expectations, preferences, background, family and environmental influences, and economic factors in the determination of appropriate AT (Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 1999). Characteristics that would lead to use or non-use are identified, and ways are developed to modify the environment, the person, or the technology to make a better match.
- #28: The WATI targets school-age children with disabilities and school districts. It provides both the process as well as specific guides relevant to the 10 sections of the model. The outcomes of the WATI assessment process focus on consideration of AT in the IEP and that the student receives AT devices and services needed to access the curriculum and meet IEP/IFSP goals and objectives.
- #29: based on a process associated with the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services. The developers of the model propose that the model integrates AT into the special education service delivery process.
- #30: focuses the attention of the individualized education plan team on four explicit areas: (1) the student, (2) the student’s environment, (3) the tasks required for active participation in the environment, (4) the tools (AT) that enable student to access environments, participate, and gain skills or enhance performance. A series of questions in each of the four areas are intended to stimulate thought, promote dialogue and consensus among team members, and guide the decision-making process.
- #32: places emphasis on the interrelationships among numerous dynamic elements, including home and school environments, the student’s personal perceptions, and resources available to the student. All of the elements guide the functional response of the school team.
- #34: Once the process of information gathering is complete and device possibilities have been decided on, it is time to introduce the learner to the device in the learner's various environments. AT assessment leads to device selection, but only after the learner has tried the devices in as many possible environments as the learner frequents
- #35: The learner's reality, not the assessment team's, ultimately determines device selection and utility. Learners may not select the "best" device from a technological point of view. Nevertheless, they will select devices that give them what they want in their lives, and understanding this is the key to AT assessment.
- #36: A comparative analysis of the models reveals both similarities and differences. They share an ultimate goal – to match a person to the most effective AT that will meet his/her needs within the environments in which it will be used. All models in some capacity explore and assess the person, the environments, and the tasks for which the technology is needed.
- #37: Each model emphasizes the process of assessment. A multidisciplinary, collaborative team approach is strongly emphasized in all models. They all follow an ecological, functional assessment approach. The SETT, ETP, LAP, and WATI are primarily designed for AT assessment within school settings.
- #38: The SETT and LAP programs could easily be adapted for adults and non-school settings, the ETP and WATI less so. In some ways, a comparative analysis of these models is a bit like the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges. Evaluated separately, they each have specific characteristics, strengths, and emphases. Taken together, they make a good fruit salad!
- #39: Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Raskind, M. H. (1998). Using assistive technology to enhance the skills of students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 53-58. Galvin, J. C., & Scherer, M. J. (1996). Evaluating, selecting and using appropriate assistive technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Garner, J. B., & Campbell, P. (1987). Technology for persons with severe disabilities: Practical and ethical considerations. The Journal of Special Education, 21 (3), 121-131. Hutinger, P., Clark, L., Flannery, B., Johanseon, J., Lawson, K., Perry, L., Robinson, L., Scneider, C., & Whitiaker, K. (1990). Building ACTTive futures. ACTT's curriculum guide of young children and technology: Section III. Preschool curriculum activities. Macomb, IL: Macomb Projects.