JSET ejournal
Training
a School Team to Integrate Technology Meaningfully into the Curriculum:
Effects on Student Participation
Ralf W. Schlosser, Ph.D.
Northeastern University
Donna McGhie-Richmond, M.A.
University of Toronto
Susie Blackstien-Adler, B.Sc.
Bloorview MacMillan Centre
Pat Mirenda, Ph.D.
University of British Columbia
Kim Antonius, M.S., and Paul
Janzen
Bloorview MacMillan Centre
Demographic studies in North America indicated that 2.5% to
6% of all students receiving special education services have
such severe communication impairments that they cannot be understood
by their teachers or peers (Burd, Hammes, Bornhoeft, & Fisher,
1988; Lindsay, Cambria, McNaughton, & Warrik, 1986; Matas,
Mathy-Laikko, Beukelman, & Legresley, 1985; National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1992). In addition
to having difficulties with face-to-face communication, many
of these students may have multiple disabilities (i.e., perceptual,
cognitive, manipulative,) that may contribute to their difficulties
in using traditional writing tools, such as paper and pencils.
Increasingly, such children can be helped in face-to-face communication
and written communication through augmentative and alternative
communication (AAC) systems (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998; Lloyd,
Fuller, & Arvidson, 1997). AAC systems include manual signs,
communication boards, or high-tech solutions such as voice output
communication aids (VOCAs) and computers.
It is estimated that a large proportion of school-aged individuals
who use AAC experience serious deficits in their literacy development
(Koppenhaver & Yoder, 1991). Students with severe disabilities
and communication impairments also frequently experience difficulties
in actively participating in the language arts and math curricula
(Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998). A recent survey of teachers
who were responsible for teaching literacy within eight Ontario
school boards supports this observation. Results indicated that
children who use AAC systems have restricted opportunities and
access to academic activities in the classroom (McGhie-Richmond
& McGinnis, 1996). If they are involved they tend to be passive
rather than active.
Assistive technology, including high-tech devices and low-tech
devices, undoubtedly has the potential to open the door to literacy
and other curricular areas for many of these students (Lewis,
1993; Male, 1994). This potential, however, can only be realized
if teachers and related service providers are trained in instructional
methodologies that enable the technology to be integrated into
these curricular areas in a meaningful manner (Bowser, &
Reed, 1995; Edyburn, 1996; Toddis, & Walker, 1993). The U.S.
Department of Education (1998) defined what they called a "technology-based
approach" as an innovative combination of technology and
additional curriculum material and instructional methodologies
that enable the technology to achieve educational purposes for
students with disabilities.
Teachers themselves have indicated that in order to be ready,
able, and supported in applying technology so that their students
can participate they not only require knowledge about various
technologies but also training in strategies for integrating
technology into the curriculum (McGhie-Richmond & McGinnis,
1996; McGregor & Pachuski, 1996). The Participation Assessment
Framework (PAF) (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998) was developed
to expand the concepts that were initially described by Rosenberg
and Beukelman (1988). It was developed as a process to guide
decision making and intervention in AAC. The framework "provides
a systematic process for conducting AAC assessment and designing
interventions based on functional requirements of nondisabled
peers of the same chronological ages as the potential AAC user"
(Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998, p. 147). As such, it can be used
as a framework for integrating students who use AAC into educational
programs. The framework provides four variables that can be manipulated
to achieve a participation pattern that is appropriate to the
needs and capabilities of the student who uses AAC. These include
three levels of overall integration (i.e., fully, selective,
and none). The framework then becomes specific with regard to
the levels of academic and social participation (i.e., competitive,
active, involved, and none). Finally, the student's level of
independence is noted. Each of these levels of participation
can be charted along a continuum.
