Course Prefix/Number: EEX 6690
Course Title: Assistive Technology for Students with Low Incidence Disabilities in Special
Education
Course Credit Hours:
3 sh
Instructor Name and Contact Information: Dr. Bob Markowitz, Associate Professor, Division
of Teacher Education, Bldg. 85, Room 119; Phone: (850) 474-2158; Email:
rmarkowitz@uwf.edu
Prerequisites or Co-Requisites: None
Course Description: This course is a broad introduction to educational and assistive
technology (AT) used for instruction of students with low incidence disabilities with a particular
emphasis on students with autism. It is designed to allow special educators and others to
analyze and apply research-based strategies in the application of AT in classrooms, schools,
and school districts. Students will critically examine strategies for creating supportive
environments for students to effectively us high and low tech AT devices, including those for
augmentative/alternative communication systems. Particular attention is given to issues related
to AT assessment, implementation, and prevention of AT discontinuance in collaboration with
other professionals and family members.
Purpose of Course: The “Empowered Person and Professional taking action” (EPP) is the
theme of the Professional Education Unit conceptual framework. This theme focuses learning
experiences on activities that permit the teacher to examine what he/she does and to take an
active role in the instructional process. The subject matter, class activities, and skill development of this course were selected to assist your personal growth in the following Empowered
Person and Professional Taking Action characteristics: a) critical thinker, b) lifelong learner,
c) counselor/mentor, d) decision maker, e) problem solver, and f) ethical/moral professional.
Goals: The State of Florida has responded to national and state initiatives in education reform
and accountability by creating legislative policies relative to the preparation of teachers.
Florida's Accomplished Practices, Sunshine State Standards, and Curriculum Frameworks
outline the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and knowledge-base that teachers and students
require to be successful in Florida's educational system. Special goals for this course are:
- To prepare students to meet the following Accomplished Practices mandated by the
State of Florida: #1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11
- To prepare students to use appropriate Sunshine State Standards in teaching
- To prepare students to meet ESOL Competencies as mandated by the State of Florida:
#2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 19
Student Learning Outcomes: Upon completion of this course, students will be able to:
1.
Understand, analyze and communicate key concepts related to AT.
2.
Analyze the legal educational mandates and ethical implications related to the purposes,
functions, and provisions of AT and AT services.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Evaluate federal, state, and local resources regarding AT, including databases and
manufacturers of devices, specialized materials, and information on funding of devices.
Demonstrate ability to identify and use technology, including assistive devices.
Critically explore how AT supports positive engagement and can pose challenges to
successful curriculum access.
Evaluate the role of transdisciplinary teaming related to the application of AT including
the use of a shared vocabulary related to technology necessary to communicate and
collaborate with team members, parents, and students.
Integrate and evaluate the integration of AT into daily classroom life to ensure students’
meaningful access in least restrictive environments, including the integration of AT in the
IEP process where appropriate.
Evaluate models and tools available for identifying and matching student needs with
appropriate AT technology that are culturally appropriate and involve the family as
partners in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of their child’s use of
technology.
Understand the iterative process of the use of assistive devices, which requires
adaptability and change over time as students and learning contexts change.
Assist students in the use of basic augmentative/alternative communication modes and
systems, especially for individuals with autism spectrum disorders.
Evaluate and apply evidence based strategies for implementing the selection and use of
AT and AT services.
Topics Covered:
A.
Assistive and Instructional Technology Overview
1.
Terms and Definitions
2.
Legal Mandates that apply – IDEIA, NCLB, ADA (Title IV), Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act, Assistive Technology Act of 1998
3.
Continuum from use of no tech to low and high technology
4.
Funding for Technology
5.
Accessing General Education Curriculum
6.
Universal Design for Learning
B.
Evaluating for Classroom Use
1.
Multidisciplinary collaborative nature of AT evaluation and service provision
2.
Roles and responsibilities of team members (teacher, SLP, OT, PT, parent)
3.
Models for assessment, selection, and training on AT
a. SETT framework (Student, Environment, Tasks, Tools)
b. QIAT model (Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology)
c. Assessing a reliable, consistent method of response
4.
Analysis of an iterative evaluation process and AT discontinuance/abandonment
a. As student grows and changes, assistive and instructional technology needs to
be re-evaluated and adapted or changed over time.
b. Issues related to prevention of AT discontinuance
C.
Assistive Technology for the Young Child
1. Family, Assistive Technology, Timeliness, Environment Model (FATTE)
2. AT and play, adapted toys, communication, literacy, mobility, developmental
domains
D. Assistive Technology for Students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder
1.
Current developments and challenges of Assistive Technology in the education of
students with labels of autism.
2.
Evaluation of a range of strategies including visual schedules (paper and handheld
devices such as Palm devices), symbols/drawings, social stories, augmentative/alternative
communication systems, tangible symbol schedules, video modeling, self modeling (social
skills) and computer software.
3.
Analysis of role of AT in assessment for the continuous teaching cycle of learning for
students with labels of autism.
E.
Assistive Technology for Students with Low Incidence Disabilities
1.
Current developments and challenges of Assistive Technology in the education of
students with labels of low incidence disabilities.
2.
Analysis of AT in the areas of Physical, Communication, Sensory, Academic, Social
skills, Behavior, Recreation, Independent living, and Transitions.
3.
Evaluation of the role of AT in accessing information (computers, etc.) for students
with labels of low incidence disabilities – stages of use.
4.
Analysis of role of AT in assessment for the continuous teaching cycle of learning for
students with labels of low incidence disabilities.
F.
Assistive Technology and Ethical Standards of Practice. Equity and Efficacy
1.
Ethical Standards of CEC, NASDSE and National Board Standards
2.
Professional Development related to AT
3.
Confidentiality and Privacy issues
4.
Efficacy of use of AT
5.
Analysis of cultural views on use of technology
Recommended Texts and/or Readings:
Readings related to Overview of AT
Bausch, M. E., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2004). Assistive technology: Are the necessary skills and
knowledge being developed at the pre-service and in-service levels? Teacher Education
and Special Education, 27, 97-104.
Blackhurst, A.E., & Edyburn, D.L. (2000). A brief history of special education technology.
Special Education Technology Practice, 2(1), 21-36.
CEC-TAM (2002). Assistive Technology Consideration: Quick Wheel. CEC –TAM.
(http://www.cec.sped.org/bk/catalog2/computer.html)
Edyburn, D. (2003). What Every Teacher Should Know About Assistive Technology. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon. (Can be packaged with certain Allyn &Bacon textbooks)
(http://freedommachines.com/ - (a film) - Retrieved on July 7, 2007 from
http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/technicalreports/fieldscans/tr-fsmethodsidentifyuse.html ) (This is an example of accessible website design)
Hitchcock, C., & Stahl S. (2003). Assistive Technology, Universal Design, Universal Design for
learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology,
18(4), 45-53. (Retrieved July 7, 2007 from http://jset.unlv.edu/18.4/hitchcock/first.html)
Johnston, L. , Beard, L., & Carpenter, L.B. (2007). Assistive Technology: Introduction and
Overview. Assistive Technology: Access for All Students. Columbus, OH: Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall. (Companion website http://www.prenhall.com/johnston)
Loeding, B. (2002). The use of educational technology and Assistive Devices in Special
Education. In J. Paul, C. D. Lavely, A. Cranston-Gingras, & E. Taylor (Eds.), Rethinking
Professional Issues in Special Education (pp 231- 250) Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Reed, P. & Bowser, G., (2005). Assistive technology in the IEP. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R.
Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp
61-80). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Roblyer, M.D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. (ISBN: 0-13-042319-X)
Wall, L. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Implications for Assistive Technology. Alliance for
Technology Access. (Retrieved May 7, 2007 from
http://www.ataccess.org/resources/nochild.pdf)
Wolfenden, D. P. (2001). Commonly Asked Questions About Assistive Technology, Maine
CITE. (Retrieved May 7, 2008 from http://www.mainecite.org/docs/caq/)
Readings related to Evaluation
Eichleay, K., McCauley, J., Walsh, L. & Dacey, M.P. (2002). Supports Lists: Tools and
Strategies to Support Access to Standards-Based Learning for Diverse Learners. Boston
Public Schools Access Technology. (Retrieved May 7, 2008 from
http://boston.k12.ma.us/teach/technology/access.asp)
Johnston, L. , Beard, L., & Carpenter, L.B. (2007). Evaluating Assistive Technology for
Classroom Use. Assistive Technology: Access for All Students. Columbus, OH: Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall. (Companion website http://www.prenhall.com/johnston)
Judge, G. (1999). Parent Guidebook to Assistive Technology Maine Department of Education.
(Retrieved on July 7, 2007 from http://www.mainecite.org/docs/ptguide/)
NASDSE (1998). Competencies for Assistive technology Providers. (Retrieved on May 6, 2008
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/atstaff.asp)
Riemer-Reiss, Marti L., & Wacker, R. (2000). Factors associated with assistive technology
discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation. 66(3).
(Retrieved July 7, 2007 from
www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0825/3_66/66032259/print.jhtml)
Smith, S. J. & Alsopp, D. (2005). Technology and inservice professional development:
Integrating an effective medium to bridge research to practice. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins,
& R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice
(pp. 777-792). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Zabala, J, (2006). The SETT Framework Revisited. Setting the stage for success: Building
success through effective selection and use of assistive technology systems. (Retrieved
July 7, 2007 from http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/JoyZabala.html)
Zabala, J.S. (2004). Development and evaluation of quality indicators for assistive technology
services. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Zabala, J.S., & Carl, D.F. (2005). Quality indicators for assistive technology services in schools.
In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education
technology research and practice (pp. 179-207). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by
Design, Inc.
Zabala, J., Blunt M, Carl, D., & Davis S. (2000). Quality indicators for assistive technology
services in school settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 25.
(Retrieved July 7, 2007 from http://jset.unlv.edu/15.4/Zabala/first.html)
Zorfass, J.R. (2005). Collaboration is key: How a community of practice promotes technology
integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 51-67. (Retrieved July 7,
2007 from http://jset.unlv.edu/20/JSETv20n3.pdf)
Watts, E.H., O’Brian M., & Wojcik B. W. (2004). Four models of assistive technology
consideration: How do they compare to recommended educational assessment
practices? Journal of Special Education Technology. 19(1), 43-46. (Retrieved July 7,
2007 from http://jset.unlv.edu/19.1/watts/first.html
Webb, B. (2000). Planning and organizing: Assistive technology resources in your school.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(4), 50-55.
Wielandt, T & Scherer, M. (2004). Reducing AT abandonment: Proposed principles for AT
selection and recommendation. Institute for Matching Person and Technology.
(Retrieved July 7, 2007 from http://www.e-bility.com/articles/at_selection.php)
Readings related to Assistive Technology and the Young Child
Johnston, L., Beard, L., & Carpenter, L.B. (2007). Assistive Technology for the Young Child.
Assistive Technology: Access for All Students. Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice
Hall. (Companion website http://www.prenhall.com/johnston)
Readings related to Assistive Technology and Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bondy, A.S., and L. Frost. (2001). The Picture Exchange Communication System. Behavior
Modification, 25(5), 725-744.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using video modeling to teach perspective
taking to children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 12- 21.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., Le, L., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). A comparison of video modeling with in
vivo modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 30(6), 537-552.
Hardy, C., Ogden, J., Newman, J., & Cooper, S. (2002). Autism and ICT - Information and
Communication Technology: A guide for teachers and parents. London: David Fulton.
Massey, N.G. & Wheeler, J. J. (2000). Acquisition and generalization of activity schedules and
their Eefects on task engagement in a young child with autism in an inclusive pre-school
classroom. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 35(3), 326-335.
Mirenda, P. (2001). Autism, augmentative communication, and assistive technology: What do
we really know? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,16(3), 141-151.
Morrison, R. S., Sainato, D. M., Benchaaban, D., & Endo, S. (2002). Increasing play skills of
children with autism using activity schedules and correspondence training. Journal of
Early Intervention, 25(1), 58-72.
Tincani, M & Boutot, A. (2006). Technology and autism: Current practices and future directions.
In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education
technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI :Knowledge by Design.
Readings related to Assistive Technology and Low Incidence Disabilities
Johnston, L., Beard, L., & Carpenter, L.B. (2007). Assistive Technology for Positioning and
Mobility Assistive Technology: Access for All Students. Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill
Prentice Hall. (Companion website http://www.prenhall.com/johnston)
Johnston, L. , Beard, L., & Carpenter, L.B. (2007). Assistive Technology for Sensory
Impairments. Assistive Technology: Access for All Students. Columbus, OH: Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall. (Companion website http://www.prenhall.com/johnston)
Johnston, L., Beard, L., & Carpenter, L.B. (2007). Assistive Technology for Communication.
Assistive Technology: Access for All Students. Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill/Prentice
Hall. (Companion website http://www.prenhall.com/johnston)
Readings related to Assistive Technology Ethics, Equity & Efficacy
Johnston, L., Beard, L., & Carpenter, L.B. (2007). Ethical Standards of Practice. Assistive
Technology: Access for All Students. Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
(Companion website http://www.prenhall.com/johnston)
Amato-Zech, N.A., Hoff, K. E., & Doepke, K.J. (2006). Increasing on-task behavior in the
classroom: Extension of self-monitoring strategies. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 211221.
Bakken, J. P., & Parette, P. (2007). Using technology to advance multicultural special
education. In F. E. Obiakor (Ed.), Multicultural special education. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Beukelman, D. & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting
children and adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes Publishing Co.
Bryant, D. P., & Bryant, B. R. (2003). Assistive technology for people with disabilities. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon. (ISBN: 02edy0532715X)
Reed, P. (2004). Critical issue: Enhancing system change and academic success through
assistive technologies for K–12 students with special needs. (Retrieved May 7, 2007
from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te700.htm)
Edyburn, D. L. (2006). Searching for evidence of effectiveness of assistive or instructional
technology interventions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 74-78.
Edyburn, D.L., Higgins, K. & Boone, R. (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology
research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Englert, C.S., Manalo, M. & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: The effects of
technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers’ composition. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 18(1), (Retrieved July, 2007 from
http://jset.unlv.edu/19.1/englert/first.html)
Fennema-Jansen, S., Whyte, F., Smith, R. O., Brayton, A., & Jansen, C. (2006). ATOMS
Project technical report - Methods to identify assistive technology device use. (Retrieved
from
http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/technicalreports/fieldscans/tr-fs-ethodsidentifyuse.html)
Parette, J.P. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on culture and diversity in assistive
technology service delivery. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(4), 5-7. (Retrieved
July 7, 2007 from http://jset.unlv.edu/20/JSETv20n4.pdf)
Schlosser, R. (2003). The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Smith, R.O. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in education. Diagnostique, 25,
273-290.
Smith, R. O., Rust, K. L., Jansen, C., & Seitz, J., (2006). ATOMS Project technical report - The
ICF in the context of assistive technology (AT) interventions and outcomes. (Retrieved
July 7, 2007 from http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/icf.html)
Smith, R. O., Seitz, J., Jansen, C., & Rust, K. L. (2006). ATOMS Project technical report –
Models and taxonomies relating to assistive technology. (Retrieved July 7, 2007 from
http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive)
Relevant Journals for Assistive Technology and Instructional Technology:
American Annals of the Deaf
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Assistive Technology
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits (e-journal)
Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Augmentative Communication News (Blackstone)
Disability & Rehabilitation
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities
Educational Technology
Exceptional Children
Exceptional Parent
Focus on Exceptional Children
International Journal of Instructional Media
International Journal of Special Education
Intervention in School and Clinic
Journal of Special Education Technology
Journal of Research on Computing in Education
Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools
Learning and Leading With Technology
Multicultural Special Education
Preventing School Failure
Remedial and Special Education
Review of Educational Research
Special Education Technology Practice
TASH
Teacher Education and Special Education
Teaching Exceptional Children
Technology and Exceptional Individuals
Topics in Language Disorders
Grading / Evaluation:
Technology Learning Activities
Participation
Journal Article Critique & Reflection
Individual Case Study Project or
Unit of Lesson Plans
AT Portfolio
40 pts.
10 pts.
10 pts.
10 pts.
30 pts..
Course Requirements: Students are responsible for demonstrating their interaction with class
content for each module and sharing the results; however, there are many ways to accomplish
this. Students will complete at least one Technology Learning Activity (TLA) for each module
from a choice given by the instructor. Students must submit a TLA for each unit. The instructor
will randomly choose four TLAs for intensive grading and feedback. A TLA rubric can be found
at the end of this syllabus. TLA’s may include:
1.
Create and post concept maps/graphic organizers/communication board/specialized
material related to what you learned in that module
2.
Create and post a movie or presentation related to that module (e.g., a video of you
showing and explaining how to use an assistive device)
3.
Create a content-related blog for the module like www.assistivetekblogspot.com or
contribute content to the course wiki
4.
Post reflections and engage in discussion board including role playing conversations
with SLP, parent or other therapists.
5.
Talk with instructor about what you’ve learned and how you will apply your knowledge in
your classroom during my online office hour CHAT.
6.
Self check (complete a knowledge assessment created by instructor for that module)
7.
Complete instructor’s webquest or create and post a Webquest for that module
Apply information to a given scenario
Field Experience component
Each student is expected to document at least 10 hours of field experience to comply with
FLDOE Endorsement requirements. Field experience includes hands-on training and/or tutorials
with assistive technology, use of AT, implementation of AT and a reflection on their use of
technology in the classroom. A time log should be submitted with the TLA. A form will be
posted for student to obtain signature of FIMC/ATEN or other trainers. .Your TLA’s should
naturally include reflections of your field experience.
For the field experience you will need to submit a Reflection Paper (four to five page) that
integrates the material presented in this course and your field-based experience. Discuss your
field-based experience and final reflections on our Discussion Board. Within your Reflection
Paper include the following:
1.
A description of your classroom and students with whom you worked.
2.
Several examples of adapted materials, assistive or instructional technology devices or
strategies that you saw or used to engage the students and any barriers you
encountered.
3.
Discuss what you have learned about assessment, instruction, advocacy,
accommodations and modifications related to technology.
4.
Discuss your successes and the challenges you faced learning about and implementing
AT and instructional technology to meet the needs of students. How did you overcome
the challenges?
5.
What did you learn about yourself as a teacher?
6.
Your integration of class material and field examples.
7.
Inclusion of appropriately completed form(s): Field Experience Completion Sheet.
Students can access assistive technology devices free of charge at their nearest
regional ATEN resource lab. For location of ATEN labs in Florida:
http://www.aten.scps.k12.fl.us/resources/preview_centers.html
B.
Participation (10 points)
For online class, participation will be determined primarily from posts made on Blackboard
Discussions. Active participation in online discussions is required for this course, within the
deadlines posted for each session or module. You may read and post messages in the
discussions at anytime of the day. The discussions enable you to interact with each other and to
discuss the readings, web sites, and issues, questions, your experiences, and thoughts related
to the course topics. Active participation requires that you both initiate discussion and respond
to others’ postings in a substantive manner. A simple, "I agree/disagree" “Nice information”
message is not substantial enough without an explanation. Instructor will post or assign
discussion topics/questions to respond to. Sessions can be facilitated by either the instructor or
students. When a student facilitates a discussion, that student should read that session¹s
material more in depth, and will be responsible for guiding the discussion for that session. A
discussion board rubric can be found at the end of this syllabus – one for online and one for F2F
participation.
C.
Journal Article Critique and Reflection (10 points)
Review, critique and reflect on one or more peer-reviewed journal articles covering a topic of
your choice from this course. The review should be no more than two (2) pages typed (Font 12)
and must include the citation (APA style) for the article being reviewed at the top of the first
page and a link to an electronic copy of the article. Post the citation and 2 paragraph summary
of your review online. See separate description of format and rubric.
D.
Individual Case Study project (10 points)
You will choose a child or young adult preferably in your classroom, who may be in need of
assistive technology or who has abandoned/stopped using a device. You will conduct a needs
assessment and research possible solutions to an educational problem. This includes
identification of features needed by the student, evaluation of products currently available,
analysis of their appropriateness and applicability, determination of possible barriers, and
determination of alternative technologies or necessary modifications. Contact the instructor as
soon as possible if you are having trouble finding a person for your case study. Instructor may
be able to assist you to find a person for your case study or provide you with an alternative way
to complete this assignment. For students seeking to use this course for the Autism
Endorsement, choose a student with an autism spectrum disorder. See rubric at the end of this
syllabus.
Alternate Assignment to Individual Case Study for MAT students
Unit of Lesson Plans (10 points)
Students will design a week-long unit plan of instruction to address the needs of a student in
their own class who uses or needs assistive technology (or a hypothetical student provided by
the instructor). Lessons are to be differentiated to address the needs of all learners and allow
them access to the general education curriculum, to the maximum extent possible. (Format,
Rubric and instructions will be provided). Each lesson must incorporate universal design
principles, instructional technology and assistive technology. All lessons must contain the
following information:
 Content Area(s) and Grade Level
 FL Sunshine State Standard addressed
 Lesson Objectives
 Lesson description
 Materials needed (including technology, assistive technology and adapted materials)
 ESOL /ESE accommodations
 Evaluation of Student Learning
See rubric at the end of this syllabus
E.
AT Portfolio (30 points)
Students will compile an AT Portfolio with information about both low and high tech assistive
devices/services to assist them in working with students, particularly students with autism. If the
course is taught online, this kit will in electronic form. If taught face to face, student can chose
either an electronic form or in a 3 ring notebook/file box. A secondary purpose is to
demonstrate what the student has learned from the course. The following sections are
suggested:
Student’s personal teaching philosophy (should refer to use of technology)
 IDEA definitions and provisions for assistive technology and services
 A sample IEP with a completed section for assistive technology
 Forms/checklists to use to assess and monitor AT needs
 Strategies for collaboration with families (re assistive technology)
 Strategies for collaboration with the AT team (other professionals/therapists/parents)
 AT devices and strategies, accommodations, and modifications to facilitate learning
across all content areas and how to incorporate assistive technology so it is naturally
occurring
 Assistive technology for managing behavior, transitions, and social skills
 Assistive technology for reading, writing, math, communication, access to computers




Assistive technology for independent living, seating, positioning, mobility, recreation,
ADLs , environmental controls
4 page referenced discussion of assistive technology decision making process of your
portfolio
Web resources for teachers related to AT, instructional Technology
Reference section
1. Reference citation (APA format)
2. Synthesize/summarize the article in clear and concise language (i.e., identify the purpose,
design, subjects, methodology-content, recommendations, findings, applicability, etc)
3. Critically evaluate the major ideas (points of agreement and/or disagreement) using the
checklist below as a guide to frame the main body of your review-critique
 What is the primary purpose of the strategy, study, program, technique, etc, that is
the focus of this article?
 Does the article ask a specific question, pose a problem/issue, or present a
model/thesis that guides your initial understanding of the author’s work?
 Was the article organized in a manner that was logical and that provided for clarity in
reading and comprehension?
 Did the article cite relevant related literature in its introduction and throughout the
text?
 Were explanations of methods, procedures, applications, findings, and discussions
clear and specific?
 Do you agree with the author on application, concepts, recommendations, methods?
Why or why not? Be specific in your rationales.
 Overall, what were the most important points made and/or information provided?
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the article? Did article provide evidence
for use of an assistive device, service or instructional strategy? Again, be specific in
your discussion of the strengths and weaknesses, citing examples from the text in
your discussion.
4. Address the implications/meanings of ideas in relation to central course concepts, impacts
on the field of special education and transitions
5. Comment on the usefulness of this information
6. Other comments
(Checklist adapted from: DeMarco, G, University of Dayton and Leedy, P. D. (1997). Practical
research: Planning and design (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.)
EEX 6931 Individual Case Study Rubric
10 points total
Critical Thinking
Evidenced in
Case Study
Adequacy of
Needs
Assessment
Clarity of
Expression/
Description of
person chosen
Written
Mechanics
Determination
of possible
barriers,
modifications,
and AT
solutions
Exemplary 2
Excellent identification of &
critical analysis of
appropriateness and
applicability of available
products for chosen student.
Provides
justification/explanation.
Superior 1 1/2
Above average identification &
analysis of appropriateness and
applicability of available
products. Provides limited
justification and/or explanation
Proficient…1
Analyzed appropriateness
and applicability of available
products but didn’t provide
justification and/or
explanation
Emerging …1/2
Provides no evidence,
analysis or
justification of
appropriateness and
applicability of
products for this
particular student.
All pages of needs
assessment and relevant
information are included.
Obtained input from more
than 1 perspective (teacher
and parent, teacher and
parapro, teacher and student
etc.
All pages of needs assessment
are included. Most relevant
information is included.
All pages of needs
assessment are included but
some information is missing.
Page(s) of needs
assessment are
missing or pages are
not filled out entirely
or contain errors.
Ideas presented clearly.
Describes person and
educational problem in a
clear and concise manner
with obvious relevant details
needed to select AT
Most ideas presented clearly.
Description of person and
educational problem stated
clearly with occasional lack of
detail needed.
Some ideas presented
clearly. Minimal description of
person or problem chosen.
A few ideas presented
clearly. Does not
provide salient
information about the
person or problem
chosen
Complete sentences, well
organized, grammatically
correct and free of spelling
errors
Complete sentences, well
organized, but a few grammar
and/or spelling errors
Complete sentences,
organization could be
improved to present a more
coherent statement; several
grammar and/or spelling
errors per paragraph
Poor sentence
structure; inadequate
organization; several
grammar and/or
spelling errors; appear
"hastily written"
Demonstrates extensive
understanding of possible
barriers, features needed and
AT solutions
Demonstrates above average
understanding of possible
barriers, features needed and
solutions
General understanding of
possible barriers, features
needed or solutions. Some
may not be appropriate for
person.
Limited or incorrect
understanding of
possible barriers,
features and /or
solutions. Some do
not apply to this
person.
Total:
/10
F2F Class Participation Rubric (10 points)
8-10 points






5 -7 points





3-4 points





1- 2 points





0 points

Consistently demonstrates a genuine desire to learn and share ideas;
demonstrates a high regard for learning
Actively initiates discussions; asks significant questions; acts as a leader; provides
exceptional insights
Listens respectfully and actively when others talk; honors the opinions of others
Completes preparatory assignments; in discussions, connections to class
readings clear
Always prompt to classes
Promptly transitions from break to work sessions
Participates regularly in discussions and frequently volunteers ideas
Listens when others talk; honors the opinions of others
Completes preparatory assignments; in discussions, connections to class
readings clear
Prompt to classes
Transitions from break to work sessions
Infrequently participates in discussions
Listens when others talk, but sometimes carries on private conversations
Preparatory assignments sometimes not complete; in discussions, connections to
class readings unclear
Tardy to classes
Occasional difficulty with transition from break to work sessions, sometimes
continues conversations with others
Usually will only offer comments when called upon by instructor or classmate
Listens inconsistently when others talk; may not be on task; may display difficulty
in accepting differing opinions
Unprepared for class
Tardy to classes
Difficulty with transition from break to work sessions; sometimes/usually continues
conversations with others
Absent and/or no participation
Adapted from Rowland, C. (2004), George Mason University.
EEX 6931 Participation Rubric for online Blackboard Discussion Participation (10 points total)
Critical
Thinking
Evidenced in
Posts
Relevance of
Posts
Expression
within the
Post
Delivery of
Post
Promptness
and initiative
Exemplary…2
Superior …1 1/2
Proficient …1
Emerging…1/2
Offers a critical
analysis of a posted
idea or introduced a
different interpretation
to an existing idea
Agrees or disagrees with
discussion and provides
limited justification
and/or explanation
Agrees or disagrees with
discussion but provides
not justification and/or
explanation
Provides no evidence
or agreement or
disagreement with
discussion
Consistently posts
topics related to
discussion topic; cites
additional references
related to topic
Frequently posts topics
that are related to
discussion content;
prompts further
discussion of topic
Occasionally posts off
topic; most posts are
short in length and offer
no further insight into the
topic
Posts topics which do
not relate to the
discussion content;
makes short or
irrelevant remarks
Expresses opinions
and ideas in a clear
and concise manner
with obvious
connection to topic
Opinions and ideas are
stated clearly with
occasional lack of
connection to topic
Minimal expression of
opinions of ideas
Does not express
opinions or ideas
clearly
Complete sentences,
well organized,
grammatically correct
and free of spelling
errors
Complete sentences,
well organized, but some
grammar and/or spelling
errors
Complete sentences,
organization could be
improved to present a
more coherent argument
or statement; several
grammar and/or spelling
errors per paragraph
Poor sentence
structure and
inadequate
organization; several
grammar and/or
spelling errors; posts
appear "hasty"
Responds promptly to
postings;
demonstrates good
self-initiative
Responds promptly to
most postings; requires
occasional prompting to
post
Responds to most
postings sever days after
initial discussion; limited
initiation
Does not respond to
most postings; rarely
participates freely
Total:
Adapted from: Edelstein & Edwards, West Georgia University; California State University at Hayward;
Luther Seminary; and Cochran, Sonoma State University
/10
EEX 6931 Technology Learning Activity Rubric
Four rubrics completed for four randomly chosen TLA’s from submission of seven (10 points each – 40
points in total)
Exemplary - 2
Superior 1 1/2
Proficient 1
Comprehensive
and clear structure
adopted that is
easily
understandable
and grabs
audience attention
Clear structure
adopted that is
understandable
and simple to read
Clear structure
adopted but some
confusion with
presentation
Unclear
presentation and
structure of TLA
Content of TLA module content
Content of TLA
relates clearly to
module content –
integrative
relationships are
made clear
Content of TLA
relates clearly to
module content –
some relationships
made
Content of TLA
relates some to
module content –
may be confusing
Content of TLA
does not relate to
module content
Content of TLA –
Content of TLA
relates clearly to
assistive
technology
pedagogy–
integrative
relationships are
made clear
Content of TLA
relates clearly to
assistive
technology
pedagogy some
relationships made
Content of TLA
relates some to
assistive
technology
pedagogy – may
be confusing
Content of TLA
does not relate to
assistive
technology
pedagogy
Content of TLA
relates clearly to
student learning
needs– integrative
relationships are
made clear
Content of TLA
relates clearly to
student learning
needs– some
relationships made
Content of TLA
relates some to
student learning
needs – may be
confusing
Content of TLA
does not relate to
student learning
needs
Strong and
comprehensive
evidence base
with reference
section in APA
Strong evidence
base with
reference section
in APA
Some attempt to
develop an
evidence base but
missing key parts
Little or no
evidence base
Presentation of
TLA
Assistive
technology
Content of TLA –
Student learning
needs
Evidence based
foundation of TLA
Emerging 1/2
Total
/10
Grading Scale
A = 90-100
B = 80-89
C = 70-79
D = 65-69
F = below 65
Expectations for Academic Conduct/Plagiarism Policy: As members of the University of
West Florida, we commit ourselves to honesty. As we strive for excellence in performance,
integrity—personal and institutional—is our most precious asset. Honesty in our academic work
is vital, and we will not knowingly act in ways which erode that integrity. Accordingly, we pledge
not to cheat, nor to tolerate cheating, nor to plagiarize the work of others. We pledge to share
community resources in ways that are responsible and that comply with established policies of
fairness. Cooperation and competition are means to high achievement and are encouraged.
Indeed, cooperation is expected unless our directive is to individual performance. We will
compete constructively and professionally for the purpose of stimulating high performance
standards. Finally, we accept adherence to this set of expectations for academic conduct as a
condition of membership in the UWF academic community.
The Student Code of Conduct sets forth the rules, regulations and expected behavior of
students enrolled at the University of West Florida. Violations of any rules, regulations, or
behavioral expectations may result in a charge of violating the Student Code of Conduct. It is
the student’s responsibility to read the Student Code of Conduct and conduct himself/herself
accordingly. You may access the current Student Code of Conduct at
http://www.uwf.edu/judicialaffairs.
Assistance: Students with a documented disability who require specific examination or course
related academic accommodations should contact the Student Disability Resource Center
(SDRC) by email at sdrc@uwf.edu or by phone at 850.474.2387.