This week's class was cancelled and we were asked to discuss various models of Assistive Technology Assessment. Here are a few that I was able to find:
Models for Assistive Technology
1) Model Name: The Human Activity Assistive Technology (HATT) Model
Authors: A. M. Cook & S. M. Hussey
General model for an AT system. Shows the interrelationship between system components.
Human Performance Model Bailey (1989) was developed by human factors engineers and psychologists ... to assist in the design and application of technology. Framework for studying human performance in tasks involving technology.
Typically used to describe the performance of a human in a given task (activity) in a given situation (context – environment).
2) Model Name: The SETT Framework Author: Joy Zabala
The SETT Framework was designed to aid the process of gathering, organizing, and analyzing data to inform collaborative problem solving and decision-making regarding assistive technology and appropriate educational programming for students with disabilities. Information is gathered concerning the Student’s abilities and needs, the Environment(s) in which the student navigates, the Tasks required for the student’s active participa- tion in the activities within the environment, and finally, the Tools needed for completing the tasks. As transdisciplinary teams engage in the consider- ation process, key questions associated with the SETT Framework (see Figure 1) provide a system- atic method for discussion and decision-making. The intuitive nature of the SETT model has led to its widespread use by school-based teams.
3) Model Name: Education Tech Points Authors: Gayl Bowser and Penny Reed
Education Tech Points was created to facilitate decision-making regarding the utilization of assistive technology services and resources when planning educational programs for students with disabilities. Bowser and Reed argue that each Education Tech Point represents a critical juncture in the process of referral, evaluation, and develop- ment of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP). As illus- trated in Figure2, the six key points are (1) referral, (2) evaluation, (3) extended assessment, (4) plan development, (5) implementation, and (6) periodic review. Because of the compatibility of this model with the traditional special education referral and evaluation process, it has been widely adopted in special education.
4) Model Name: The AT CoPlanner Model
Authors: Leonard P. Haines, Gladene Robertson, Robert Sanche, and col- leagues
Recognizing the value of technology to foster communication and the time-lock pressures of the school day that infringe on adequate time for collaborative planning, Haines, Robertson, Sanche, and colleagues created,CoPlanner, a groupware product that supports communication, collabora- tion, and co-planning. Additional content modules (i.e., Instruction CoPlanner, Transition CoPlanner, and Assistive Technology CoPlanner) provide elec- tronic worksheets and planning systems that support specific applications of collaborative planning. In work describing the theoretical development of the assistive technology module, Haines and Sanche (2000) summarize their review of four common special education technology models and how they used a normalization
5) The ABC Model Author: Rena Lewis
While technology can be helpful to everyone, Lewis observed that it is important to recognize the unique contributions technology offers students with disabilities. She suggested that these benefits could be understood by noting that technology can Augment abilities and Bypass or Compensate for disabilities (see Figure 5). This model is intuitively easy to understand and is the essence of rehabilita- tion and therapy decision-making.
6)Model Name: The A3 Model Authors: Smith, Schwanke, & EdyburnThe A3 Model is a theoretical work that seeks to describe a developmental process associated with efforts to provide access for individuals with disabilities to facilities, programs, and information. As shown in Figure 12, the model illustrates a web- and-flow of efforts that are needed to obtain universal accessibility . In the first phase, Advocacy efforts raise awareness of inequity and highlight the need for system change to respond to the needs of individuals with disabilities. Accommodations are the typical response to advocacy. Inaccessible environments and materials are therefore modified and made available in phase 2. Typically, accom- modations are provided upon request. While this represents a significant improvement over situa- tions found in the earlier phase, accommodations tend to maintain inequality since there may be a delay (i.e., time needed to convert a handout from print to Braille), it may require special effort to obtain (i.e., call ahead to schedule), or it may require going to a special location (i.e., the only computer with screen reading software is in the library)
The other part of our assignment was to find 10 Low Tech Assistive Tech items. Here are a few from the web and a few from my Learning Centre.
Clothes pins can be used for a variety of AT, including counters for basic math.
Simple shoe box and beads to create a shoe box activity for a blind student at my school. He counts the beads and puts them in the can.
Another shoe box activity. Different shapes with the blocks. Counting them and placing them into the container.
Muffin tray we use in the Learning Centre for a counting tray. We have velcro on the each for a tactile and the student feels each muffin top to count.
Simple wooden blocks with velcro. The student pulls them apart to develop fine motor strength.
Basic winter gloves with a ball, ball has velcro to aid student to catch the ball in PE class.
Basic pencil grip aid to support students with fine motor difficulty and to promote proper pencil grip.
Basic PVC piping used to have student hear themselves read, what they sound like.
Party ring on a mouse enables the student to hold onto the mouse pad.
In conclusion I really enjoyed the assignment. Thanks for reading :)