2005 NCTI Conference General Sessions Long Writeup
The AT Field at a Tipping Point: Findings from NCTI’s Dialogue Forums
The NCTI Dialogue Events revealed the convergence of opportunities available to promote the potential of AT as a powerful part of an achievement solution for all students. Panelists who participated in Dialogues discuss the key findings and recommendations from the report, Moving Toward Solutions: Assistive and Learning Technology for All Students.
Dave Edyburn (Moderator), Associate Professor, Department of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lynne Anderson-Inman, Director, Center for Advanced Technology in Education (CATE) and Center for Electronic Studying, College of Education, University of Oregon
Diana Carl, Director, Special Education Services, Region 4 Education Service Center
Bob Regan, Director, Project Management, Macromedia
Dave Edyburn (Moderator), Associate Professor, Department of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The format for this panel comes from the conclusions from nine different Dialogue Forums, where stakeholders on key issues and barriers convened to talk about possible solutions. The final document: Moving Toward Solutions: Assistive and Learning Technology for All Students, contains these key findings and recommendations, places where we can make a difference at this “tipping point,” a moment at which, given the right conditions, significant rapid change will result:
- Building Leadership Capacity for Implementation;
- Identifying and Leveraging Existing Networks and Resources;
- Addressing the Pace of Innovation Versus Implementation;
- Balancing Universal Design and Assistive Technology; and
- Developing a Research Agenda to Inform Policy and Practice.
The entire report will be released at ATIA in January, and will be on the NCTI website.
When we think of a “tipping point,” a moment when a core idea takes on a momentum of its own—and when we consider that OSEP has been funding technology and media for over 25 years—are we at that point? Each of the panelists experiences change—do they believe we are at a “tipping point,” and if so, what can we do to create the conditions for significant rapid advancement?
Lynne Anderson-Inman, Director, Center for Advanced Technology in Education (CATE) and Center for Electronic Studying, College of Education, University of Oregon
The report asks, “What will it take for AT to be considered a critical component of education to help students reach their potential?” The answer to that question is very complex. She would like to rephrase the question to ask, “How will be know when AT is helping more students to learn and achieve their potential?” Indicators are likely to be that small changes suddenly start to have a major impact, sometimes unforeseen; when the technologies traditionally identified as AT are embedded in the tools that all people use every day.
We as educators, inventors, innovators, have to pay attention to those everyday, consumer technologies. AT is everywhere you look, lots of people use it and don’t know they are using it, don’t know to call it that.
Her daughter’s cell phone not only enables her to text-message, that text can be the basis for text for a school project. The shorthand language and minimal expressiveness of text messaging does not matter thanks to a load of shortcuts and word prediction software embedded in the cell phone. As she is realizing how much power exists in her typically-developed daughter’s cell phone, meanwhile she is working with schools that have to be persuaded to include word prediction software as instructional technology.
What else is in the cellphone? Voice recognition, speech recognition, web access, reminders, calendar—all in a normal cellphone. She mentions a colleague with severe learning disabilities—and a Ph.D. and other certification of advanced intelligence. Because he can’t follow a map or tell left from right, he got a Global Positioning System on his Palm Pilot and in his car so that now, for the first time in his life, he can find his way anywhere and back again.
To sum up: AT is all around us. Furthermore, AT devices are relatively inexpensive and many of them we already own. As educators and advocates, we need to know how to capitalize on these technologies. If AT is at the tipping point it is because mainstream technology has incorporated AT into their products. AT products that were on the cutting edge a few years ago are no longer cutting edge. This is a good thing, but only if we know about it and use that knowledge.
Diana Carl, Director, Special Education Services, Region 4 Education Service Center
When she first saw people using AT, she became a believer and she still is. AT can be the tipping point for students to access the curriculum. She’s worked at the district level, regional level (dealing with more than a million students) and now at the state (with more than 4 million students).
How can we build capacity? IDEA is both a barrier and a change agent: it required that AT be considered as a part of each student’s IEP—so then campus level people needed to be aware of AT. She would have liked a more specifics in the IDEA requirements in 2004—practitioners must “consider” AT, but what does that loose term really describe? Too often, districts may mention AT in IEP paperwork but what “consideration” does that reflect? The only thing districts must pay attention to is a legal mandate. So, especially with all of the conflicting priorities, from behavioral problems that have to be dealt with, to standards, AT, which is not a clear legal mandate, isn’t really integrated as it could and should be. Why isn’t everyone getting the benefit and power from programs like Inspiration, for example? What is the percentage of students with disabilities that should be using AT?
If the educational assistive tech is not being used, it is likely that special ed AT is not being used. Another double-edged sword is NCLB—while there is considerable pressure on making Adequate Yearly Progress and having “highly qualified” teachers and meeting standards, still, we can use an alternative test for AYP using accommodations that have been implemented in the classroom and enable students to pass on grade level, thereby avoiding filling up the 1 percent cap allowing alternate standards.
Teacher training is also an area of concern; many of the universities are trying to include an understanding of AT, its potential use and application, but teachers continue to lack that knowledge base. Additional in-service could replenish that critical deficit.
At her service center, for 13 years they’ve delivered team trainings. Districts send a team over several times during the year. During the first year, the training delivers basics; each subsequent year builds on those basics. These are interspersed with web-based Blackboard and other online training that gives lots of additional opportunities for learning and reinforcement. All of this flows into certification—states need to develop technology standards and certification at that level to build the workforce. Quality indicators and best practices can be found at www.qiat.org
Bob Regan, Director, Project Management, Macromedia
He asks whether we are at a tipping point or on the edge of the cliff? The future is unsure, although a couple of transformations are surely on the way.
While 508 created the AT movement and drive for accessibility, IDEA will force more change. In addition, we have changes in the technology itself—its growth is outpacing our thinking about it.
In addition, the kids are outpacing us in mastering it.
And we see new types of applications, incremental tools that are built by taking part of one person’s work and putting it together with another’s.
Finally, now, changes in the operating system—the release of VISTA—will force the AT community to rethink how it works. Every piece of AT will have to be rebuilt from the ground up; is this a great opportunity or a great loss? This moment is what frames every conversation in the collaborative space, whether in smaller or larger companies.
Another substantial question driving collaboration is whether it is cheaper to build it or buy it. Small companies build products—and then the big companies build the products into the operating system. For example, now that the Mac has a screen reader, is there a market left for screen readers for the Mac?
From the large companies’ perspective, there’s a bully mentality. We need to think in a more collaborative way.
How do you broaden the AT market? That’s the wrong question. Don’t think of AT as a product but as a service, an effort to build things that essentially take bits and pieces from other products. AT could be attached to a website, ready to be used as a tool. This would create entirely different ways to think about collaboration—building those relationships before the “big company versus little company” attitude clicks in.
Discussion
Dave Edyburn: The pace of change in the marketplace is completely different from the pace of change in research.
Tom Large: The sooner I am out of a job the better because it means the job is done. With the changes in user interfaces and improved basic levels of AT, small companies may die but that is the normal way of things.
Bob Regan: That may be a “normal thing” but it’s not always a good thing. Small companies are really good at those things they focus on—and they have the passion as well as the focus. To enable them to make their contribution, the system needs to accommodate collaboration.
TL: Why can’t the little guys license their inventions and move on to the next thing? That way, the AT community can have cost-effective technology because it is needed by “typical” users as well. Many minor applications can have wide audiences.
Lynn Anderson-Inman: Researchers should never be researching “a product.” We should be researching features within a product—otherwise by the time the research is done, the product is remaindered. For example, she is researching information organization, and her research will remain relevant because it examines features, not products.
Comment from the floor: What’s the rock that holds back the AT avalanche that’s being pushed over the hill by net standards and a “net generation” that’s smarter with their technology than we are? People who train teachers and AT practitioners. Another rock holding back the avalanche: the states aren’t allowing the technology because everything is to the test, and that’s delivered in many cases without accommodations. You’re preparing the students for the world but they will still fail the gateway exam.
|
