Based on what I researched and heard in class during the AT assessment model presentations, I think the best representation of the factors involved in assessment models comes from Joy Zabala. An image from her "Straight from the Horse's Mouth" presentation is shown below.
The depiction of assessment factors does address a number of the issues brought to the forefront in Morrison's article. For example, within the environment building block of the pyramid, Zabala addresses the idea that attitudes within the environment wherein the student functions will influence the student's use of technology. Perhaps, an improvement on this image would be to add a building block addressing issues of time in terms of assessing AT. Morrison did assist in my understanding of this factor when discussing teacher time required to learn about new ACT and how once useful ACT may become ineffective over time.
Morrison's article did, indeed, add to my understanding of AT assessment. The author explains why otherwise well-suited AT can fail to function well for the student. Some problems which arise during implementation can be lack of teacher time, limited training, access to support services, limited leadership in the school or board, or lack of shared vision or rationale for ACT (assistive computer technology).
There were also a number of other messages in the text that I noted. I liked that the author left me without the feeling of desparation despite these challenges or problems. There were suggestions about what others have been doing (self-education, locally developed workshops, and mentoring opportunities) and a discussion of universal design for learning and communities of practice.
Two of my favourite statements were:
1) "Above all, planning and implementation process for students with learning problems must be student focused. Planning starts with the student, not the technology" (p. 90). I, too, believe this is true. Regardless of the technology available, the user's needs and preferences will have more weight in the successful implementation of technology.
2) "Software that might be appropriate for one student with learning problems may not be helpful for another student experiencing similar difficulties." Although this statement seems like common knowledgte, I think it is worthy of being stated. It is important that we recognize there is no one-size-fits-all technology for a given need. Individuals' use of AT needs to be considered on an individual basis.
There was some repetition of ideas I've heard to date:
1) "[T]eachers' attitudes are a key factor for implementation of assistive computer technologies" (p. 84).
2) "It may be helpful for teachers to approach ACT implementation from" models such as the SETT framework (p. 88).
Some new ideas for me to check out or reflect upon:
1) The National Assistive Technology Resource Institute's Policy Checklist (p. 86)
2) QIAT's set of eight competencies for the implementation for ACT, specifically for the common errors inthe process (p. 87) I'd like to say more about these two new ideas, but I haven't had time to research them yet.
I love the visual in this post Sherry and the commnet that we need to focus on the student first and the technology second.
ReplyDeletethe technology is very useful, but the most important is focus on the student and their needs then the technology.
ReplyDelete