Determining Children’s Assistive Technology Needs through
Video Conferencing Assessments
Debra Bauder
University of Louisville
United States
debra.bauder@louisville.edu
Abstract: Based upon current practices, state-of-the-art assistive technology assessment systems are not widely
developed or implemented in rural areas. Children with disabilities have major problems in accessing assistive
technology that meets their needs. In addition, the availability of trained professionals that can diagnose the
nature of a child’s assistive technology needs and identify the technology that will best suit their situation is also a
dilemma. The ATVC (assistive technology via videoconferencing) Model uses distance-based videoconferencing
technology capabilities in assessing the assistive technology needs of students living in rural areas. This model
capitalized on the expertise of assistive technology experts that guide local school personnel in the actual
assessment process via videoconferencing connections for a distance-based diagnosis and identification of
possible technologies that fit the students’ need.
Introduction
We are only beginning to understand the impact that technology has on children’s ability to learn and to achieve
educational outcomes. This is especially true for children with disabilities. Children with disabilities frequently
experience obstacles in meeting the demands of their environment. The use of technology, including assistive and
adaptive devices, can improve their level of functioning (Blackhurst, 1997; Dell, Newton, & Petroff, 2012; Lewis,
1993; Michaels & McDermott, 2003; Wojcik, Peterson-Karlan, & Parette, 2004). This is especially true given the
push of providing general access to the curriculum for all children receiving specially designed instruction. It is also
important that students are provided meaningful access to curriculum. In order for this access to be achieved, the
child’s program should include the supports, modifications and accommodations that can ensure that the child’s
educational goals are achievable (Molloy & Baskin, 1994/1995; Orkwis & McLane, 1998; Pugach & Warger, 2001).
To provide an environment for children with disabilities, the availability and implementation of assistive technology
needs to exist (Bauder, 1999; Bausch & Ault, 2008; Dell, Newton, & Petroff, 2012). To be successful in meeting the
needs of students, an assistive technology process must be designed based upon the best practices including “a)
employing technology as a tool to facilitate the achievement of educational goals; b) utilizing environmentally based
assessment procedures to assist in the selection of appropriate assistive equipment and c) promoting interactions
with non-disabled peers in a natural environments” (ASHA, 1996, p. 14). Ideally, the selection of assistive
technology should be based on individual student needs, not on equipment availability (Bauder, 1999).
Furthermore, It is agreed that the success experience by students with disabilities when using AT is related directly
to the AT knowledge, skills and training of teachers (Michaels & McDermott, 2003: Wojcik, Peterson-Karlan, &
Parette, 2004).
Integrated assessment procedures are an important aspect of the assistive technology identification. These
procedures are a two-fold process. The first process involves the initial identification of individual’s needs.
Secondly, an assistive technology assessment process should be an on-going facet of the education program (Lynch
& Reed, 1999). This on-going process is used to evaluate the effectiveness and fine-tune the use of assistive
equipment. In addition, both processes should include a fluid multidisciplinary team, (whose members change
depending on the student’s needs, to assess and prescribe technology) (ASHA, 1996).
Additionally, as a result of the assessment and identification of needs, technology should be integrated
where appropriate and as needed, across all learning environments of the individual. This AT process is designed
through the process of assessing a child’s needs, goals, and skills; using these results to determine the necessary
characteristics that an assistive technology system must have; conceiving of, and planning for that individual;
delivery and training in device use; and following up to evaluate success (Chambers, 1997).
Videoconferencing Technology
State-of-the-art assistive technology delivery systems are not widely developed or implemented, especially
in rural areas. The multidisciplinary personnel needed to provide service delivery is also limited, therefore, children
are not necessarily afforded the assistive technology needed to enhance, promote or provide educational progress,
access to general curriculum and participate in school reform efforts.
However, recent telecommunications developments, particularly integrated voice, video and data systems,
as well as satellite and compression technologies, have made distance education formats a viable alternative to
improving access to educational opportunities for learners of all ages, at all levels and in diverse environments
(Bilton-Ward, 1997; Kearsley, 2000).
Videoconferencing is a powerful information-sharing medium and an innovative way to convey ideas, and
share information to groups of people. This is accomplished through the transmission of digital voice conversations
and video pictures through the Internet (Bilton-Ward, 1997; Petty, Harrison, & Treviranus, 1999). To start an
Internet videoconference, both parties first need to be on-line with multimedia-equipped computers i.e., powerful
computer, speakers, microphone, and video or mini camera. Each person can see and speak into their microphone to
record and transmit their voice as digital data through the Internet. In order to have effective transmission it is
recommended that a T1 or a DSL line instead of dial-up Internet access is utilized (Lehman & Dewey, 1998).
Videoconferencing provides instant communication, and allows the ability of individuals to meet face to
face regardless of distance. It also allows facilitating learning between remote classrooms and educational centers
by providing immediate access to specialist from remote locations, while maximizing human resources (Burge &
Roberts, 1993; Petty, Harrison, & Treviranus, 1999). Advantages and uses of videoconferencing include: is a
viable, effective and efficient medium for a number of reasons such as; access to many different types experts
working at other locations, personnel in remote or dispersed locations can access to primary site personnel,
increased professional and education training opportunities (Brody, 1995; Burge & Roberts, 1993).
Conducting Assistive Technology Assessments
The ATVC (assistive technology via videoconferencing) Model addressed rural access to multidisciplinary
assistive technology evaluation and technical assistance from trained professionals by using distance-based
interactive technologies to conduct distance-based assistive technology assessments and provides technical
assistance. While distance-based diagnosis and treatment services have been utilized in the medical field for a
number of years (e.g. telemedicine), the application of current distance based interactive technology for educational
evaluation and assistance has remained somewhat unexplored. The video conferencing tools used to assess the
students were accomplished in three primary modes: video phone using plain old telephone (POTS) systems, a
compressed video system using three ISDN lines, and/or the Internet/Web utilizing various software and camera
technologies.
Assessment Procedures
The procedures for conducting the assistive technology assessment comprised of an initial referral,
completion of an AT screening form, and videoconference meeting with the local education team working with the
respective student. This videoconference between the LEA and AT expert team was important to further clarify the
student needs based upon the background information that was previously collected about the student.
The assessment protocol was a basic framework in which activities were developed for each individual
assessed. Local participants participated in videoconference rehearsal of the assessment prior to each distance-based
assessment. Also, an assessment kit tailored to each child’s individual AT assessment needs was sent to each team
leader at least one week prior to the assessment in order for the local team to familiarize themselves with the
equipment that was to be used during the assessment.
The actual assessment included a videoconference link and the expert AT team would watch and guide the
local school team members in conducting the assessment. The assessment protocol was used and developed as a
script that the LEA team used during the assessment process. The LEA team could also ask questions or comment as
the assessment was being conducted.
The AT expert team and the local team debriefed after each evaluation, Their discussion reviewed the
assessment and the observations that all personnel identified during the process. This information was used to
provide critical issues and information for the assessment report.
The provision of professional development training was an outcome of each assessment. Once the AT
needs of each child was determined, a distance-based training was developed for each local school team. District
personnel were involved in the selection and in the development of each training event. The majority of the
professional development training was provided through a compressed videoconferencing network. However, there
were several professional development trainings conducted via the videophone. At the end of each training, school
personnel was asked to submit a training event evaluation form. Overall, training was rated very helpful to the
implementation of the overall AT program. In addition, products and materials were developed to individualize the
professional development training. For example, customized communication boards and Intellikeys ™ overlays
were developed for numerous students. These overlays were designed specifically with the student that received the
videoconferencing based AT assessment.
The Study
Participants
Approximately 50 students were initially referred participated in using videoconferencing assessment
model. This number represents individuals that the local school districts. The 50 referrals were screened and
narrowed to 30 participants. All 30 were included in the evaluation process; however, only 28 were ultimately
evaluated due to maturation effects. For example, medical complications developed that prevented two students
from being assessed. The participants represented a wide variety of characteristics and needs. This was done to
determine the utility of the videoconference approach to live AT assessment based on disability characteristics.
Further, each of the participants was broadly matched on similar characteristics and randomly assigned to use a
compressed video assessment, videophone, or videoconference via web (SKYPE, Webcam). This process was
implemented to determine effectiveness of the various videoconference technologies for performing distance-based
AT assessment.
The demographic variables that represented the 28 rural evaluations included, nine participants at the
elementary level, nine participants at the middle school level and 10 participants at the high-school level. The
breakdown of diagnostic categories of the participants is found in Table 1.
Table 1. Diagnostic categories of participants
Disability Category
N
Disability Category
N
Physical disability
Speech impairment
Learning Disability
Visual Impairment
Functional Mental Disability
Hearing Impairment
7
4
3
11
2
1
ADHD
Autism
Developmentally Delayed
Cerebral Palsy
Down’s Syndrome
5
5
3
1
1
The AT assessment needs of the 28 rural students were further defined: 16 having academic needs, 13
having environmental needs, and 20 with communication issues. It should be noted that some students had
overlapping needs.
Findings
Evaluation activities consisted of using rubrics, questionnaires and various statistical analyses to understand the
various nuances of the study activities. Questionnaires were used to evaluate the satisfactoriness of the evaluation.
This was accomplished by having both the rural local school team evaluate the process along with the AT experts
members responding to an equivalent questionnaire.
Local Education Agency Participants
Twenty-eight distance-based assistive technology assessments were conducted. All LEA respondents
(n=48) indicated that the directions provided by the AT expert team were adequate for the local education agency
(LEA) team to complete the task of implementing and/or securing the AT devices. Some initial concerns were
expressed about the viability of the process, however satisfaction was expressed by all of LEA participant team
members. Eighty percent of the respondents from the LEA team members indicated intent to follow through with the
recommendations.
As a result of the assessments it was found that conducting videoconferencing based AT assessment was a
viable method of conducting distance-based assessments. Furthermore, many local team member have indicated
that they are eager to assist in furthering the use of AT for their students as a result of participating in the distance
based assessments. Additionally, local school district team members expressed that by participating in this type of
assessment they improved their local interdisciplinary collaboration efforts and increased communication among
local AT team members.
Student Impact
The impact on students can be looked at, quite literally, as what can the student do that the student could
not do before the initiation of this process. Other variables include whether the assessments were utilized in the
development of an updated IEP and whether programs were developed that supported that IEP. Further, changes in
the student’s performance on other indicators such as test scores, standardized assessments, improvement in
portfolios and performance in everyday school activities such as homework, group participation, reading or writing
activities were analyzed.
All of these variables lead to a perceived understanding of the impact of videoconferencing assessment on
the student recipient. Data analysis indicates that video conferencing assessment reports have been applied in most
of the participating students classrooms. Reviewing the data, over 80% (22 of the 28) of the students had the
suggested services or products included or projected to be included in the student’s IEP or daily activities. Of those
students that have had an IEP Team meeting (Admissions and Release Committee-ARC) and have had a discussion
of the AT assessment report, only one student’s IEP did not include the recommendation from the AT assessment.
This was due to the fact that there was another more recent AT assessment and the ARC chose to follow the
suggestions of the more recent assessment.
Of the students that have received some aspect of the recommended AT services/products, the LEA reports
that eight of the students felt comfortable working with the recommended item. Additionally, the LEA
representative indicated that all of the students (n = 22) who have received the AT assessment recommended
devices/services were integrating the AT into the classroom. The LEA representatives reported that the majority
(20) of the students had integrated the AT across curriculum; three integrated the AT across the home, school and
community, and three across various staff. Of the 20 students that have benefitted from having the recommended
AT assessments services/devices, the LEA representative reported that 10 of the students have had average or above
average benefits. However, one student appeared to be experiencing no benefits of the recommended assistive
technology.
Conclusions
The ATVC Model was an effort to provide children with disabilities better means of accessing technologies
that would enable them to achieve outcomes expected of all students, such as greater independence and productivity
especially in rural settings. This effort was achieved not only through using video-conferencing and Internet
technologies to provide functional assistive technology assessments, but also a) assists school personnel in
determining and implementing assistive technology devices and services and b) conducting professional
development for school personnel through distance based technology avenues. This model of conducting distance
based AT assessments had many positive outcomes. First and foremost, the viability of conducting distance based
videoconferencing AT assessments has been established. Students living in rural areas can be provided AT
assessments without having to travel long distances. Additionally, it has been realized that using this technology not
only allows for reliable AT assessments, but also an impetus for developing strong school team approaches. Many
local school team members indicated that they are now working more closely, and as a result, the identified students
have a more cohesive individualized education plan. Through this model, procedures, the development of local
team members in understanding and using the technology has been of great benefit. Many local team members did
not use technology or recommend the use of technology for their students because of their own lack of knowledge
and training.
Through this model of AT assessment, local team members became stakeholders. As a result of
participating in the assessment process, the team became more acquainted with the technology, thereby more
comfortable in using the technology. As a result, there was a greater likelihood that students would then be the
beneficiaries of recommended AT. The provision of professional development workshops increased or strengthened
both local school personnel and parents on how to use the technology. The workshops were well received and it is
believed that they further increased everyone’s comfort level and expertise. Training school personnel and parents
also helped them to understand the benefits of using the AT.
The AT videoconferencing model was successful in creating a system in which distance based AT
assessments could be accomplished. It was believed that using this technology, in itself, holds great promise to
students that are not afforded AT assessment because of lack of qualified local school personnel. It is through this
technology, that AT specialists can assist local school personnel in the identification of implementation of AT for
children. It is also believed that through this process, children with disabilities might be afforded the AT that could
provide them with greater access to the curriculum. As a result, children with disabilities would be able to be more
successful in reaching their educational goals.
References
ASHA (1996). Technology in the classroom: Education module. Rockville, MD: American Speech Hearing
Association, 1996.
Bouck, E. C., Shurr, J. C., Tom, K., Jasper, A. D., Bassette, L., Miller, B., & Flanagan, S. M. (2012). Fix It With
TAPE: Repurposing Technology to Be Assistive Technology for Students With High-Incidence
Disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 56(2), 121-128. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.603396
Bausch, M. E., & Ault, M. J. (2008). Assistive technology implementation plan: A tool for
improving outcomes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41 (1), 6–14.
Bauder, D. K (1999). The use of assistive technology and the assistive technology training needs of special
education teachers in Kentucky schools. (Doctoral Dissertation: University of Kentucky, 1999).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 12A , 1999, 4378.
Bilton-Ward, A. C. (1997). Virtual teaching: An educator’s guide. Waco, TX: CORD Communications, 1997.
Blackhurst, A. E. (1997). Perspectives on technology in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(5),
41-48.
Blackhurst, A. E., & Shuping, M.B. (1990). A philosophy for the use of technology in special education:
Technology and media back-to-school guide. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1990.
Burge, E. J., & Roberts, J. M. (1993). Classrooms with a difference: A practical guide to the use of conferencing
technologies. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Brody, P. J. (1995). Technology planning and management handbook: A guide for school district educational
technology leaders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Chambers, A. C. (1997). Has technology been considered? A guide for IEP teams. Albuquerque, NM: Council of
Administrators in Special Education, 1997.
Bühler, C., Engelen, J., Emiliani, P., Stephanidis, C., & Vanderheiden, G. (2011). Technology and inclusion - Past,
present and foreseeable future. Technology & Disability, 23(3), 101-114.
Dell, A., Newton, D., & Petroff, G. (2012). Assistive technology in the classroom: Enhancing the school
experiences of students with disabilities, (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dove, M. K. (2012). Advancements in Assistive Technology and AT Laws for the Disabled. Delta Kappa Gamma
Bulletin, 78(4), 23-29.
Hällgren, M. M., Nygård, L. L., & Kottorp, A. A. (2011). Technology and everyday functioning in people with
intellectual disabilities: a Rasch analysis of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ). Journal
Of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(6), 610-620. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01419.x
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Disability in America; Field MJ, Jette AM, editors. The Future of
Disability in America. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2007. 7, Assistive and
Mainstream Technologies for People with Disabilities. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11418/
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Lewis, R. B. (1993). Special education technology: Classroom applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Lynch, J. L., & Reed, P. (1999). Using an assistive technology checklist to facilitate consideration, assessment and
planning. CSUN's Fourteenth Annual International Conference Technology and Persons with Disabilities
Proceedings, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved on August 2, 2002 at http://www-cod.csun.edu/conf/1999/
proceedings/session0041.htm.
Lehman, R., & Dewey, B. (1998). Videoconferencing training beyond the keypad: Using the interactive potential.
Conference Proceedings ITCA Expo 1998, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved on September 1, 2002 at
http:www.uwex.edu/disted/training.htm.
Mavrou, K. (2011). Assistive technology as an emerging policy and practice: Processes, challenges and future
directions. Technology & Disability, 23(1), 41-52.
Michaels, C. A. & McDermott, J. (2003). Assistive technology integration in special education teacher preparation:
Program coordinators’ perceptions of current attainment and importance. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 18(3), 29-41.
Molloy, P., & Baskin, B. (1994/1995). The challenge of educational technology for students with multiple
impairments in the classroom. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 23(1), 75-85.
Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998, Summer). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student
access. Reston, VA: ERIC/OSEP Special Project, Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 423654)
Petty, L., Harrison, L., & Treviranus, J. (Feb/March 1999). Distance education: Tools and applications in assistive
technology. Henderson, MN: Closing the Gap. Retrieved on October 1, 2002 at
http://www.closingthegap.com/cgi-bin/lib/libDsply.pl?a=1179&b=2&c=2.
Pugach, M. C., & Warger, C. L. (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 194-196.
Lee, H., & Templeton, R. (2008). Ensuring Equal Access to Technology: Providing Assistive Technology for
Students With Disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 212-219. doi:10.1080/00405840802153874
Reichle, J. (2011). Evaluating Assistive Technology in the Education of Persons with Severe Disabilities. Journal Of
Behavioral Education, 20(1), 77-85.
Wojcik, B. W., Peterson-Karlan, G., Watts, E. H., & Parette, P. (2004). Assistive technology outcomes in a teacher
education curriculum. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 1, 21-32