The definition and purpose of Assistive Technology has certainly changed over the years. As we reflect on this evolution, how has the change in definition impacted how Assistive Technologies are perceived and used in the classroom? To what might we 'truly' attribute this evolution?

The use of technology in general has skyrocketed over the last few decades and along with it the use of assistive technology has grown. After reading Beard (chapter 1) and Bryant (chapter 1), it is clear that the evolution of assistive technology (AT) has been spurred on by the passing of legislation mandating the incorporation of AT into education. As the Bryant article notes, “The most profound changes in AT have occurred as a result of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and its subsequent reauthorizations” (Bryant p. 4). The initial law in 1975 mandated access to schools for individuals with disabilities. In 1990, the law broadened to require access to classrooms. In 1997, the law became access to the general education curriculum, and in 2004 access to instructional materials was mandated (Bryant p. 4).

Both Beard and Bryant define AT similarly as “an item or piece of equipment or product system acquired commercially, off the shelf, modified, customized, and used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capability for an individual with disabilities” (Beard p. 4). Beard also points out that AT can also be beneficial for ELL students, at risk students, and gifted students. However, in a training package prepared by IBM in 1991, the importance of AT for individuals with disabilities is stressed. IBM stated, “For people without disabilities, technology makes things easier. For people with disabilities, technology makes things possible” (Bryant p. 1).

Beard identifies levels of AT and states, “Technology does not have to be sophisticated and expensive to be effective” (p. 11). He identifies levels of AT on a continuum from no tech, where the student does not need or is not ready for a device, to light tech, which can be as simple as pencil grips, enlarged print or special paper (p.10). At the far end of the spectrum are high tech devices such as computer or voice activated devices. Bryant also distinguishes between assistive technology devices and services. Services are equally as important as devices. Students need to be evaluated; AT devices need to be carefully selected and purchased. Additionally, training of students, families and professionals must be conducted (p. 8-9). Finally, both authors agree that securing funding for AT should be a joint proposition between school districts, families, government agencies and other organizations. While school districts are required to fund AT that is listed in a student’s IEP, often other sources of funding may be available.

When I was reading about the various levels of AT, I was reminded of one of my students who graduated last year. I had Lily as a student in my sixth grade language arts class and again in a senior English class. (I had switched from middle school to high school.) Lily was blind and also had mobility issues. Her access to and use of technology changed over time. In sixth grade she was struggling to learn to read and write Braille. Her Braille typewriter fell on the higher tech end of the AT continuum but caused her a great deal of frustration. One of the best “no tech” adaptations we made was part of a group project. The kids were recreating scenes from the book, Where the Red Fern Grows. The kids in Lily’s group decided that their scene re-creation would be textured and 3-D. They brought in sticks, moss, grass and assorted other materials. Lily was totally involved and the project was a successful learning experience for everyone.  

In preparation for Lily’s senior year, I submitted a list of the books we would be reading to Lily’s case manager. She ordered all the books from a library for the blind. (They were all free - which is a good example of collaborative funding.) However, as the year progressed, Lily found it far more efficient to listen to audio versions of the books which were widely available. She still wrote in Braille and a paraprofessional transcribed her work. (I’m surprised she didn’t have a voice activated computer device, which if I had taken this class then I would have investigated!) By senior year, the focus was on what worked for Lily. Lily became an advocate for her own learning. After graduation, she continued to work on life skills through the school system and The Bureau of Education and Services for the Blind. At her final PPT there was a long list of attendees representing the various therapists and organizations who had been instrumental in coordinating her education. The assistive technology and services Lily received made her education possible. However, it is Lily who deserves the most credit. She never complains and never gives up. Lily is a true success story, and as a result, she is an inspiration to everyone who knows her.

While I don’t have a lot of experience with assistive technology, I see the possibilities. There are a lot of Lily’s out there who can accomplish great things. I am eager to learn more because the benefits are enormous.

Citations

Beard, L. A., Carpenter, L. B., & Johnston, L. B. (2011). Assistive technology: Access for all students (2nd/3rd ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education.

Bryant, D. P., & Bryant, B. R. (2012)/ Assistive technology for people with disabilities (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River. Pearson Education.