JSET ejournal

Assistive Technology
Associate Editor Column
Tamarah Ashton

Surveying Special Education Staff on AT Awareness, Use, and Training

Guest Columnist: Lisa Wahl
Assessing staff knowledge of assistive technology has become increasingly important as school systems grapple with developing plans for AT screening, assessment, staff development, and implementation in a variety of educational settings. The issues of training and knowledge of AT have been cited as problems in numerous studies (Alliance for Technology Access, 1999; Lesar, 1998; Sax, Pumpian, & Fisher, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Lesar (1998) found that 68% of early childhood special education teachers felt unprepared in the use of AT. Other studies have shown that AT is still not frequently included in special education training (Burnham, 2000; Ludlow, 2001).

Surveying staff in a way that produces meaningful information is a challenge. Broad questions about AT, augmentative communication (AAC), or technology integration may produce meaningless results due to the variations in interpretation of these terms. This column describes an effort to gain preliminary baseline data about what special education staff know and what they use in the way of assistive technology.

Method
A survey on the topic of AT knowledge, use, and issues of staff development was sent to 356 special education personnel employed by a large (36,000+ students) suburban school district located in Northern California. The survey design was created to be user-friendly, given a presumed low level of awareness. Instead of asking questions such as, "Is assistive technology used in your classroom," a list of specific items was presented. Additional questions were asked, particularly about training.

Returned surveys were entered into a drawing for a $50 gift certificate to encourage a timely response. Overall, 49% of those surveyed sent a response (N=173). Response rates varied slightly by category: Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs), 65%; Occupational Therapists (OTs), 52%; Special Day Class (SDC) teachers and Resource Specialists, 46%; and instructional specialists, 35%.

Results
Respondents indicated specific AT items with which they were familiar, were available to them, were being used by students, and/or were desired. As a group, SLPs had the highest level of awareness (61%), followed by SDC teachers (48%), and Resource Specialists (45%). SLPs also reported having the largest number of items available to them (18%), while Resource Specialists reported the fewest (10%).

Low tech items dominated the top of the list for items known, available, and used by students in the past year. Overall, most well known were pencil grips, NCR paper, calculators, highlighters, slant boards, and FM amplifiers. Most available were calculators, highlighters, font size adjustments, PECS, objects used for communication, and slant boards (most indicated using notebook binders as slant boards). The items most used by students included calculators, grips, slant boards, highlighters, FM amplification, and the use of real objects for communication.

Staff were quite sparing in the number of items they checked as desired (14%). Desired devices were evenly split between high and low tech items. They reported wanting electronic books, pencil grips, adapted paper, talking word processors, AlphaSmarts, NCR paper, highlighters, stand-alone electronic spell checkers, and accessible math software. Several added a comment about needing a computer before software or training. Those at the middle school level expressed interest in the largest number of devices (20%) which may correspond with the lower rate of student utilization also reported by this group.

Staff Development
Three questions addressed interest in staff development and willingness to obtain it from home using a personal computer. Overall, 80% indicated an interest in continued AT education. Topics varied somewhat within the three largest groups of respondents, as indicated in Table 1.

Put table 1 about here

Staff were asked to indicate a level of interest in free online coursework done from home. Of those who wanted staff development, 57% were open to both hands-on and online methods. Thirty-one percent would only consider hands-on delivery, and 12% would only consider online options. SLPs were the most enthusiastic about online delivery and the least interested in hands-on, while the reverse was true for SDC teachers and Resource Specialists.

Estimating Student Benefit
Teachers were asked to estimate the number of students who could benefit from the AT items on the survey, and the number currently using one or more item. Depending on their professional category, the estimates of those who could benefit ranged from 38% to 80%.
A total of 69 SDC teachers reported working with 1165 students. They felt 80% of these students could benefit from the AAC/AT items in the survey. They reported that 50% were using 1 or more devices, usually low tech items such as pencil grips and slant boards. Fifty of the Resource Specialists also replied to this question. Resource Specialists felt 68% of their students could benefit, including 40% already using 1 or more devices, again usually low tech. Thirty-six SLPs reported working with a total of 1600 students. They felt 38% of these could benefit from the AAC/AT items in the survey. They reported that 14% were already using 1 or more devices.

Discussion
A number of surveys related to AT ask questions such as, "How comfortable are you with assistive technology?" or "Has your knowledge of AT increased in the past year?" Without concrete definitions, these surveys may be highly biased in a way that cannot even be predicted. This survey bypassed that issue by naming specific items. While not all could be named, teachers frequently wrote in other devices. The survey allowed examination of high versus low tech, as well as awareness and utilization levels for individual devices. For instance, teachers reported that none of their students were using voice recognition software.
The survey responses have been helpful in determining the overall level of awareness for four categories of special education staff. They confirmed and expanded information gathered through guided observations done in eight classrooms at four school sites and interviews with selected staff, as part of a larger needs assessment.

The survey also confirms the need for planning staff development delivery via both distance learning and hands-on methods to meet the needs and preferences of adult learners. It provides a baseline that can be revisited after the implementation of AT staff development plans. The district has recently added a full-time AAC specialist, an AT specialist, and a second AT para-professional. In addition to direct services, this team will be designing staff development to include in-service mentoring from district staff as well as outside consultants. The district has also initiated an informal training program for 20 special education staff per year willing to use the Internet from home.
An opportunity to use the same survey with para-professionals, parents, and general education teachers in this district would be of interest. Another stage of inquiry will be to gather data on the ways in which AT devices are being used in the classroom.

References
Alliance for Technology Access. (1999). Assistive technology connections: Meeting the needs of Californians with disabilities. A report to the California endowment.
Burnham, B. (2000). Training special educators to incorporate technology into everyday learning: Strategies for the new millennium. CSUN Technology and People with Disabilities conference proceedings. Northridge, CA: California State University, Northridge.
Lesar, S. (1998). Use of assistive technology with young children with disabilities: Current status and training needs. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 146-159.
Ludlow, B.L. (2001). Technology and teacher education in special education: Disaster or deliverance? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(2), 143-145.
Sax, C., Pumpian, I., & Fisher, D. (1997). Assistive technology and inclusion. [Technical report]. Pittsburgh, PA: Allegheny University of the Health Sciences. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 738)
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.

Appendix
Assistive Technology Survey
Name________________________________ Site(s)______________________________
Check all that apply SDC___ RS____ SLP____ OT____ Full Inc.______ Other_____
We are interested in what technology is currently available, being used, and is desired.
Please mark an "X" in all that apply.
Assistive Technology Item I know about it. It is available to me. My students have used in
last 12 mos. I would like to have it.
1. Accessible math software (e.g., MathPad, Access to Math)
2. Actual objects or graphic symbols (pictures) used for communication
3. Adapted paper (bold line, raised line)
4. Adjustments to font type, size, and/or background colors
5. Big Mac or Step by Step Communicator for single or multiple recorded messages
6. Calculator
7. Electronic books or books on disc/CD
8. FM amplification system
9. Height adjustable table or cart
10. Highlighter pens and/or colored sheet protectors
11. IntelliKeys or other keyboard alternative
12. Keyguard
13. Manual communication boards
14. NCR paper
15. Notetaking device (e.g., AlphaSmart)
16. Pencil grips
17. Picture Exchange Communication Systems (P.E.C.S.)
18. Scanner
19. Single switches for environmental control, or access to communication system
20. Slant board
21. Stand alone electronic spell checker (e.g., Franklin)
22. Talking word processing software (e.g., IntelliTalk, Write:OutLoud, Text Help)
23. Trackball or other mouse alternative
24. Voice output communication device (e.g., DeltaTalker, Macaw, Dynavox)
25. Voice recognition software (e.g., Via Voice, Dragon Dictate)
26. Word prediction software (e.g., Co:Writer)
27. Other

28. How many working computers with a CD ROM drive are in your classroom?
29. With how many students do you work?
30. What percentage of your students do you believe can benefit from one or more of the items in the chart above?
31. What percentage of your students are currently using one or more of the items?
32. Would you be interested in assistive technology training? If yes, list some topics of interest.
Enthusiastic Yes____ Yes_____ Maybe_____ Depends_______ No______
32. If you have access to a home computer and the Internet , would you be interested in free online training?
Enthusiastic Yes____ Yes_____ Maybe_____ Depends_______ No______
OPTIONAL: If you responded with an enthusiastic yes to either of the last two questions, please list an email address or phone number so we can contact you as opportunities develop.

Lisa Wahl is a consultant working in the area of disability, education, and technology. She served as Director of the Center for Accessible Technology for 10 years. Correspondence can be sent to: Lisa Wahl, 2334 Roosevelt Ave., Berkeley, CA 94703 or to lwahl@pacbell.net.

top of page