EDEX 750
Technology for Special Populations
I. Descriptive Information
A. EDEX 750 Technology For Special Populations
B. Catalog Description:
"The application of microcomputers and other technology in services for special
populations. Case management, assessment, and instructional uses of the technology are
included."
At this time, we are only offering this course during Spring semester.
Technology for Special Populations is course in the study of technology applications for
persons with disabilities and the use of technology for personal productivity for the special
educator. This document describes the goals and objectives, requirements, grading,
calendar, and activities for the course. All objectives, activities, reading and assignments
focus on the use of technology for instruction.
C. Course Credit: 3 Graduate Hours at the 700 level
D. Prerequisites:
There are no course prerequisites for this course. However, candidates who are not familiar
with the computer operating system and basic programs like Word, Excel, PowerPoint &
Web Browsing may need to spend extra time at the beginning of the course becoming
familiar with the specific software, different hardware and operating systems. Candidates
do need to know how to use a mouse and be proficient with a word processor. Candidates
need to be prepared to take risks and explore new technologies.
E. Intended Audience: Graduate candidates enrolled in the M.A.T or M.Ed. program in
special education, special educators, general education, counselor educators, and speech
language pathologists interested in the integration of technology in teaching.
F. Instructor: Dr. Cheryl Wissick
Programs in Special Education, 235 D
(office) 777-8859 (OIS) 777-4475 call for specific hours
(email) cwissick@sc.edu (WWW) http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/edex750.html
Office Hours: TBA, by appointment and on email at all times
II. Statement of course goals & objectives
Goal:
The goal of this class is to prepare candidates to be contributing professional educators in the
area of special education technology. As a professional educator, you will possess specialized
knowledge in the applications of technology to support the Universal Design of the
Curriculum for students with disabilities and have the ability to transform that knowledge
pedagogically into a form appropriate to the classroom and the learner (knowing the subject
from the perspective of both student and teacher) preparing the student for the transition from
school to work or the educational setting and the client. You will learn the technology skills
appropriate for a professional education. This includes the integrity, justice, intellectual spirit
and stewardship to integrate technology for students with disabilities. In this course, we
address skills from CEC standards 4, 6, and 7
Most importantly you will consider two questions concerning technology:
- Will technology enable students to do something they could not do before?
- Will technology enable students to do something they could do before but now do it better?
Objectives & Competencies:
The candidates will:
1. Choose, use, and modify appropriate technologies to accomplish instructional objectives
and integrate them appropriately into instructional and remedial methods and techniques.
2. Discuss instructional considerations, examine features of universal design for learning, and
analyze research regarding the use and effectiveness of technology for diverse populations;
3. Develop an awareness of cost, source and range of technology configurations and resources
available for all students including persons with disabilities and students from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds;
4. Evaluate, select, develop, and adopt technology-based curriculum materials that respond to
the cognitive, physical, and emotional characteristics of the learner and cultural, linguistic,
and gender differences.
5. Integrate technology experiences and knowledge with classroom teaching, practicum, or
other graduate classes;
6. Understand the importance of curriculum standards and objectives and how technology
might be used to enhance instructional objectives, access the general education curriculum,
and prepare students for the school to work transition and functional living skills;
7. Develop awareness and appropriate use and range of the adaptive and assistive devices
available for persons with disabilities (i.e., communication boards for young children or
students with severe disabilities; word processors and word prediction for students with
learning disabilities; )
8. Discuss the ethical issues related to copyright issues and the use of technology for students
with disabilities and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds;
9. Complete a technology integration curriculum unit which will include:
 Preparation of lessons that use technology applications as a tool to teach;
 Consideration of Universal Design for learning when creating lessons and assessments
related to disability, cultural or linguistic background.
 Selection and adaptation of technology according to characteristics of the learners;
 Consideration of technology to assist in the planning and management of the teaching
and learning environment;
 Integration of activities that promote and encourage thinking, problem-solving, and other
cognitive strategies to meet individual needs;
 Completion of a wiki or web page that includes all lessons, instructional strategies for the
unit.
 Presentation of several activities from the unit.
III. Text and Readings:
All Students are required to submit work in MS Word Format. Open Office is available for free
download and file can be saved as Office compatible http://www.openoffice.org/
1. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design
for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[Online http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent//]
2. Price & Nelson, Planning Effective Instruction, 3rd Edition, Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN 0495-00757-9 (M.A.T. students only also required for Student Teaching)
3. O'Bannon, B.W., & Puckett, K. (2007). Preparing to use technology. Allyn and Bacon. ISBN
0-205-45617-0
IV. Academic Course Requirements
• Class Participation: Candidates are expected to participate in class, be prepared by bringing
handouts and reading the textbooks, listening during the demonstrations, and working on the
computer individually or in groups at the appropriate times. Candidates are expected to use the
computers in the lab for on-task work and avoid emailing or game playing.
• Skill Assignments to include
Skill 1: WP (fancy) on unit topic idea
Skill 2: Lesson plan
Skill 3: Web Toolbox
Skill 4: Creative Writing
Skill 5: Graphic Organizer
Skill 6: Smartboard Activity
Skill 7: PowerPoint Non-linear self checking activity
Skill 8: Spreadsheet activity
Skill 9: TrackStar
Skill 10: Bookbuilder
(all skills completed before class time and sent by email as attachment)
• Curriculum Integration Project
Web based presentation of a thematic unit.
Rationale for the theme
Relationship to specific state or national standards
Relationship to specific needs of students with disabilities
Explanation of UDL
List of Web resources, software resources and hardware needs
Ten UDL lesson plans that integrate technology
Example of skills related to each lesson plan
• Portfolio
Candidates will be introduced to how to create their program portfolio. Candidates should
begin their portfolio for the program during this course. The portfolio may be shared
privately with the instructor or publicly with the class. The portfolio should include a
welcome page with a picture, at least three other buttons for three CEC standards should be
completed. Candidates may choose to complete their portfolio using a wiki such as Zoho,
Google Docs, WetPaint, PBWiki or Wikispaces - which can all be private.
V. Administrative Course Requirements
Candidates will be expected to attend EACH class session, come to class on time, read all
assigned materials, complete skills and projects on time, and contribute to class discussions.
Candidates are expected to listen and pay attention when someone else is talking, and share
their comments, questions, or thoughts with the rest of the class as appropriate. Candidates
will be asked to leave class if they engage in side-talking or otherwise disrupt the group.
Candidates are asked to turn off cell phones during class. Candidates who work on the
computer during class presentations will be asked to turn off the computer. Points will be
deducted for each missed class, with partial points for half-class. Five points will be deducted
each week for each assignment turned in later than one week after the due date. Due dates of
assignments are indicated on the calendar. Candidates who miss more than 2 classes in full
or 3 partial classes in the semester may have their grade lowered by one letter grade or
may be required to repeat the course. Candidates who do not complete assignments by the
last day of class will be graded on the assignments completed.
If you are experiencing problems in completing assignments, please seek assistance from me,
or your classmates. If you feel you need accommodations, please seek advice from Disability
Services.
VI. Evaluation & Grading:
Activity
Technology Skills (10*10)
(points reduced if late)
Curriculum Integration Project and Presentation
Portfolio and Teaching Every Student activities
Class participation (12 * 3 = 36)
Final Exam: Newsletter & UDL/AT reflection
A
B+
B
C+
C
D
Points
100
100
24
36
40
92% and above) = 274-300
(87%-91%) = 260-273
(82%-86%) = 244-259
(77%-81%)= 230-243
(72%-76%)= 215-229
(Below 72%)= Below 215
VII. Topics
All topics in this course focus on the ethical use of technology to enhance instruction for
students with disabilities and cultural and linguistic differences.
Universal Design for Learning
Productivity tools for instruction: word processing, spreadsheet, graphic organizers,
presentation tools.
Whiteboards and classroom engagement tools
Web 2.0 collaborative tools
Meeting state and national standards using technology
Facilitating school to work success for students with diverse learning needs
Assistive Technology and Adaptive Devices
Augmentative and Alternative Communication Devices
Consideration of a range of topics for thematic units:
Prevent Bullying, Let’s get Organized, Pirates, Medieval Times, Making friends, Choosing a
Career, Tips for Communication, Understanding Others
VIII. Mode of Instruction
Demonstration 50%
Lab Activities 30%
Group Projects 10%
Presentations 10%
IX. Bibliography : Research on the Effectiveness of Technology
Ashton, T. M. (2005). Students with learning disabilities using assistive technology in the
inclusive classroom. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special
education technology research and practice. (pp.229-238). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge
by Design.
Assistive Technology Act (1998). Washington, DC: Retrieved on November 5, 2009 from
http://www.section508.gov/docs/AT1998.html
ATOMS (2006). Informational database of assistive technology assessments. Milwaukee:
University of Milwaukee, Assistive Technology Outcomes Measurement System. Retrieved
November 5, 2009 from http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/idata/
Bailey, M. N., Meidenbauer, N., Fein, J., & Mollica, B. M. (2005). Comprehensive statewide
programs of technology-related assistance, In Edyburn, D, Higgins, K., & Boone. (Ed),
Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 3-29). Whitefish Bay,
WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Bellini, S., & Akullian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling and video self-modeling
interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional
Children, 73, 264-287.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and
keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 32, 123-141.
Blackhurst, E. A. (2005). Historical perspective about technology applications for people with
disabilities, In Edyburn, D, Higgins, K., & Boone. (Ed), Handbook of Special Education
Technology Research and Practice (pp. 3-29). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design,
Inc.
Boon, R. T., Fore, C. Blankenship, T., & Chalk, J. (2007). Technology-based practices in social
studies instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities: A review of the literature.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(4). 41-56.
Bottge, B.A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average
and below-average achieving students. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 81-92.
Bottge, B.A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S., & Serlin, R.C. (2001). Anchoring adolescents’
understanding of math concepts in rich problem-solving environments. Remedial and
Special Education, 22, 299-319.
Bottge, B.A., Heirnrichs, M., Mehta, Z.D., & Hung, Y. (2002). Weighing the benefits of
anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The
Journal of Special Education, 35, 186-200.
Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z. D., Rueda, E., Hung, Y-H, & Danneker, J. (2004).
Teaching mathematical problem solving to middle school students in math, technology
education, and special education classrooms. Research in Middle Level Education Online,
27(1), 43–69. Retrieved November 5, 2009 from
http://www.nmsa.org/research/rmle/winter_03/27_1_article_1.htm.pdf
Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Kwon, J. M., Grant, T., & LaRoque, P. (2009). Assessing and tracking
students’ problem solving performances in anchored learning environments. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 57, 529-552.
Bouck, E. C., Bassette, L., Taber-Doughty, T, Flanagan, S. M., & Szwed, K. (2009). Pentop
computers as tools for teaching multiplication to students with mild developmental
disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 367-380.
Bouck, E. C., & Bouck, M. K. (2008). Does it add up? Calculators as accommodations for sixth
grade students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 17-32.
Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2009). Assistive technology and mathematics: What is there
and where can we go in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(2),
17-30.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration
of issues in learning and instruction design. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 40(1), 65–80.
Crooks, S.M., White, D.R., & Barnard, L. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of note
taking on computer-based graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
37(4), 369-391.
Cullen, J., & Richards, S. B. (2008). Using software to enhance the writing skills of students
with special needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 33-44.
De La Paz, S. (1999). Composing via dictation and speech recognition systems: Compensatory
technology for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 173182.
Douglas, K. H., Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Bell, V., & Meade, C. (2009). Expanding literacy for
learners with intellectual disabilities: The role of supported eText. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 24(3), 35-44.
Edyburn, D.L. (2002). Models, theories, and frameworks: Contributions to understanding
Special education technology. Special Education Technology Practice. Retrieved November
5, 2009 from http://www.setp.net/pdf/4-2pp16-24.pdf
Edyburn, D. (2005). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities: From consideration
to outcome measurement. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of
special education technology research and practice. (pp.229-238). Whitefish Bay, WI:
Knowledge by Design.
Edyburn, D. (2009). Response to intervention (RTI): Is there a role for assistive technology?
Special Education Technology Practice, 11(1), 15-19.
Edyburn, D., Gardner, J. E., & Wissick, C. A. (2008) Technology enhanced professional
productivity. Ed. Lindsay, J. (4rd ed.). Technology for Exceptional Learners. (pp. 231-258).
Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.
Edyburn, D. L. & Smith, R. O. (2004). Creating an assistive technology outcome measurement
system: Validating the components. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 1(1).
Electronic Journal. Retrieved on November 5, 2009 from
http://www.atia.org/atob/ATOBWeb/ATOBV1N1/index.htm
Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students' achievement
and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 34(5), 433-463.
Englert, C. S., Zhao, Y., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N. Y., & Wolbers, K., (2007). Scaffolding the
writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an internet-based
technology to improve performance. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 9-29.
Fadel, C. & Lemke, C. (2006). Technology in the schools: What the research says. Cisco
Systems. Retrieved on November 5, 2009 from
http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/TechnologyinSchoolsReport.pdf
Feng, J, Karat, C., Sears, A. (2005). How productivity improves in hands-free continuous
dictation tasks: lessons learned from a longitudinal study. Interacting with Computers, 17,
265-289.
Gardner, J. E., & Wissick, C. A. (2002). Enhancing thematic units using the World Wide Web:
Tools and strategies that integrate technology for students with mild disabilities. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 17(1), 27-38.
Gardner, J. E., & Wissick, C. A., (2005). Web-based resources and instructional considerations
for students with mild cognitive disabilities. Eds. Edyburn, D., Higgins, K., and Boone, R.
The Handbook of Special Education Technology: Research and Practice. (pp 683-718).
Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Gardner, J. E., Wissick, C. A. & Edyburn, D. (2008). Technology enhancement of curriculum,
instruction and assessment, Ed. Lindsay, J. (4rd ed.). Technology for Exceptional Learners.
(pp. 259-321). Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.
Gardner, J. E., Wissick, C. A., Schweder, W., Smith, L. (2003). Using technology to enhance
interdisciplinary instruction for ALL students. Remedial and Special Education. 24(3), 161172.
George, C. L., Schaff, J. I., & Jeffs, T. L., (2005). Physical access in today’s school:
Empowerment through assistive technology. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.),
Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp.355-377). Whitefish
Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal, 101, 251-272.
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., and Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A
meta analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Assessment, 2 (1), 1-52. Retrieved November 5, 2009 from http://www.jtla.org.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of
adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Hannum, W.H. (2007). When computers teach: A review of the instructional effectiveness of
computers. Educational Technology, 47(2), 5-13.
Hasselbring, T. S., & Bausch, M. E. (2006). Assistive technologies for reading Educational
Leadership, 63(4), 72-75.
Hasselbring, T. S., & Goin, L. (2005). Research foundation and evidence of effectiveness for
FASTT Math. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://www.tomsnyder.com/reports/.
Hasselbring, T., Lott, A., & Zydney, J., (2006). Technology-supported math instruction for
students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. Center for
Implementing Technology in Education. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved
November 5, 2009 from http://www.cited.org
Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on
the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 159-174.
Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2000). Speaking to read: The effects of continuous vs. discrete
speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 19-30.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access o the
general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35
(2), 8-17.
Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, Universal Design , Universal Design for
Learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology,
18(4), 45-52.
Horney, M. A., Anderson-Inman, L., Terrazas-Arellanes, F, Schulte, W., Mundorf, J., Wiseman,
S., Smolkowski, K., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Frisbee, M. L. (2009). Exploring the effects
of digital note taking on the student comprehension of science texts. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 24(3), 45-61.
Igo, L. B., Riccomini, P. J., Bruning, R. H., & Pope, G. G. (2006). How should middle school
students with LD approach online note taking? A mixed-methods study. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 29, 89-100.
Izzo, M. V., Yurick, A., & McArrell, B. (2009). Supported eText: Effects of text-to-speech on
access and achievement for high school students with disabilities. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 24(3), 9-20.
Johnstone, C. J., Altman, J., Thurlow, M. J., & Thompson, S. J., (2006). A summary of
research on the effects of test accommodations: 2002 through 2004 (Technical Report 45).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved
November 5, 2009 from
http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech45/default.html
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., & Tindal, G. (2007). Embedded technology: Current and future practices
for increasing accessibility for all students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(4),
1-15.
Kim, A.H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on
the reading comprehension of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105118.
King, T.W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp.
67-86.
Kingsley, K. V., Boone, R. (2008-09). Effects of multimedia software on achievement of middle
school students in an American History class. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 41, 203-221.
Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & MacGill., A. R. (2008). Writing, technology, and teens.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 5, 2009
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Writing-Technology-and-Teens.aspx
Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M., & Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word processing tools for
students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 95-108.
MacArthur, C. A. (1998a). From illegible to understandable: How word recognition and speech
synthesis can help. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 66-71.
MacArthur, C. A. (1998b). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects
on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 21, 151-166.
MacArthur, C. A. (1999). Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 158-172.
MacArthur, C. A. (2009). Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling
writers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 93-103.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & Schafer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing
instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word
processing. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 278-291.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Haynes, J. A., & De La Paz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers and
students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling, Journal
of Special Education, 30, 35-57.
Malouf, D. B., & Hauser, J. (2005). A federal program to support innovation and implementation
of technology in special education, In Edyburn, D, Higgins, K., & Boone. (Ed), Handbook
of Special Education Technology Research and Practice (pp. 3-29). Whitefish Bay, WI:
Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Magnuson, T. & Hunnicutt, S. (2002). Measuring the effectiveness of word prediction: The
advantage of long term use. TMH-QPSR 43, 57-67.
Marino, M. T., Marino, E. C., & Shaw, S. F., (2006). Making informed assistive technology
decisions for students with high incidence disabilities. Teaching Exception Children, 38(6),
18-25.
Meskill, C., & Hilliker, S. (2005). English language learners and technology. In D. Edyburn, K.
Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and
practice (pp. 119-135). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Montgomery, D. J., Karlan, G. R., & Coutinho, M. (2001). The effectiveness of word processor
spell checker programs to produce target words for misspellings generated by students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(2), 27-41.
Mote, Y., & ZAhner, J., (2004). Keyboarding instruction for special needs elementary students.
Action Research Exchange, 3(1), Retrieved November 5, 2009 from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/
Okolo, C. M., Cavalier, A. R., Ferretti, R. P. & MacArthur, C. A., (2000). Technology literacy
and disabilities: A review of the research. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.),
Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical
instructional issue (pp. 179-250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Okolo, C. M., Englert, C.S., Bouck, E.C., & Heutsche, A. M. (2007). Web-Based history
learning environments: Helping all Students learn and like history. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 43, 3-11.
O'Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Story, K., & Newton, J.S. (1997).
Functional assessment of problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Parette, H. P., Huer, M. B., & VanBiervliet, A. (2005). Cultural research in special education
technology. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education
technology research and practice (pp. 81-103). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1999). Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition
technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities.
Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 251-281.
Rao, K., Dowrick, P. W., Yuen, J. W. L., & Boisvert, P. C. (2009). Writing in a multimedia
environment: Pilot outcomes for high school students in special education. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 24(1), 27-38.
Reed, P., & Bowser, G., (2005). Assistive technology and the IEP, In Edyburn, D, Higgins, K.,
& Boone. (Ed), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 3-29).
Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Roberts, K. D., & Stodden, R. A. (2005). The use of voice recognition software as a
compensatory strategy for postsecondary education students receiving services under the
category of learning disabled. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 49-64.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schweder, W., & Wissick, C. A., (2007). Blogging in and out of the classroom. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 22(4), 63-69.
Schweder, W. , & Wissick, C. A. (2009). The power of wikis. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 24(1), 57-60.
Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed
strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305.
Wetzel, K. (1996). Speech-recognizing computers: A written-communication tool for students
with learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 371-380.
Williams, S. C. (2002). Word-Prediction Software Can Help Students Write. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 34, 71-77.
Wissick, C. A., (2005). Written language: When to consider technology. Technology in Action,
Technology and Media Division, 1(6), 1-12.
Wissick, C. A., & Gardner, J. E., (2008). Conducting assessments in technology needs: From
assessment to implementation. Assessment for Effective Intervention. 33(2).
Wong, B. Y. L. (2001). Commentary: Pointers for literacy instruction from educational
technology and research on writing instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3) 359369.
Woodward, J., & Reith, J. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special
education. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 503-536.
Zabala, J., (1995). About the SETT framework. Lake Jackson, TX: Assistive Technology and
Leadership. November 5, 2009 from http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/JoySETT.html
Zabala, J., (2002). Update of the SETT framework. Lake Jackson, TX: Assistive Technology and
Leadership. Retrieved November 5, 2009 from
http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/SETTupdate2002.html
Zabala, J. S. & Carl, D. F., (2005). Quality indicators for assistive technology. In D. Edyburn, K.
Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and
practice. (pp. 179-207). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Zabala, J.S., & Korsten, J.E. (1999). Assistive technology implementation and evaluation plan.
Making a measurable difference with assistive Technology: Evaluating the effectiveness of
assistive technology. Lake Jackson, TX: Assistive Technology and Leadership. Retrieved
November 5, 2009 from http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/ZabalaImplePlan2001.PDF