Search results

Given the rise of individuals who have complex communication needs (CCN), it is important to identify appropriate assistive technology systems that can support the individual's communication needs. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems can serve as a means to assist individuals to communicate independently. The goal of AAC is to enhance or replace the individual's current and limited verbal or written communication skills. This chapter focuses on feature matching, aided communication and the selection process for aided communication systems including low to high technology systems. It also emphasises other key considerations pertaining to person-centred planning such as conducting preference assessments and trial periods to minimise system abandonment.

Simpson (2005) reported that although children with DD and autism can benefit from the use of AT, the potential for use of this medium by this population remains largely unexplored. According to Simpson, AT may be an effective intervention to address student needs in: (a) communication, (b) matching, (c) spelling, (d) problem solving, (e) alertness, (f) motivation and behavior, (g) task completion, and (h) self-help. In addition, AT may be effective with students with DD and autism because these students love playing with a computer due to the predictability of its activities (see Thorp, 2007). Furthermore, computers provide stimulating visual images that children with DD and autism crave.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework and explore ways UDL decreases potential barriers for diverse students while increasing opportunities to learn. The sociocultural theory of Lev Vygotsky (1978) serves as a theoretical framework for UDL. Vygotsky (1978) placed much emphasis on the role of the social interaction in the development of cognition stating, “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57). Additionally, he focused considerable attention on language and private speech. The ability to express oneself in any environment, particularly the classroom, is critical to intellectual development. Another pivotal concept is that of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which reflects the point between what a child has previously learned and can complete independently and that which they cannot do, even with supports. Our intent was to use student examples, or case studies, of typical diversity in the classroom, to demonstrate the application of UDL principles. Specifically, we provide ways planning for representation of material, expression of material, and engagement in material, which can benefit all learners. The case study examples demonstrate ways effective planning can benefit learners in many areas. The case studies presented in this chapter reflect a small portion of the diverse population in classrooms across the nation. Yet the case studies demonstrate ways planning can incorporate students “in the margin” while at the same time benefitting all students in the classroom. Addressing diversity through the UDL lens helps teachers accommodate individual differences through intentional instructional design, while at the same time providing resources for all students in the classroom.

In this chapter, my aim is to describe and analyse conceptually and provide direction for the identification, selection and use of assistive technologies (ATs) to support the education and development of young children with disabilities. The chapter discusses the quality of early intervention practices and the pragmatic role of ATs in delivering effective early intervention impacts. In making this case, the chapter draws upon Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to illuminate how ATs can be selected and used effectively in schools to enable all young children to thrive in their learning and development in inclusive classrooms.

The focus of this chapter is the role of technology in diverse students’ active learning and interconnectedness in inclusive classrooms. The discussion is guided by the inclusive pedagogical approach in action (IPAA) framework, which is used as a tool for planning teaching and critical reflection. Inclusive education has previously considered the role of technology through the lens of Universal Design for Learning to inform how teachers plan instruction for students’ maximal accessibility, participation and engagement. We use the IPAA framework to build on and extend this by challenging teachers to also consider and incorporate technologies in innovative ways for students to collaborate with each other and build classroom relationships, as well as engaging with the curriculum on their own terms to make learning more meaningful.

Technology, particularly for students with disabilities, is often viewed as “the great equalizer” (Wyer, 2001, p. 1). It is perceived as a means of providing access and opportunity, promoting independence, and encouraging empowerment (Edyburn, Higgins, & Boone, 2005b). Technology can greatly benefit students with disabilities and solve many of the challenges these students face. Perhaps, this was put most profusely by former Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Judy Heumann, “For most of us, technology makes things easier. For a person with a disability, it makes things possible” (Edyburn et al., 2005b, p. xiii). The potential of technology is enormous for students with disabilities. For example, technology can provide a voice to those students who may not otherwise have one per their disability (i.e., AAC devices), read a text to a student who struggles with reading as a result of his/her disability (i.e., text-to-speech devices, screen readers, and Reading Pens), grant access to a computer and other electronic tools (i.e., switches and speech recognition), and offer low-tech devices such as pencil grips or lined paper to aid students in writing.

Learners with autism require specialized education and supports to ensure acquisition and mastery of various communication skills. This is particularly true for individuals whose disability significantly impacts their language development. Without functional communication, these individuals often engage in severe behavior, have reduced self-determination, and experience diminished quality of life. Accordingly, researchers in special education and related fields have sought ways to improve the communication skills of learners with autism who need specialized language and communication interventions. Although the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) is well-established in the empirical literature and has helped countless individuals learn to communicate, the method known as facilitated communication (FC; which also is being called “supported typing” and “rapid prompting method”) has become increasingly popular in recent years. Few methods in special education have been as thoroughly discredited as FC and perhaps none are as dangerous. This chapter contrasts the thoroughly debunked FC and its pseudoscientific characteristics with those underpinning PECS. A brief historical account of each method is provided along with key scientific and pseudoscientific features that distinguish science from pseudoscience. Ultimately, our intent is to further clarify how FC is not an augmentative or alternative communication method and why PECS is.