Four Models of Assistive Technology Consideration: How Do They Compare to Recommended Educational Practices?
By Watts, Emily H.; O'Brian, Mary; Wojcik, Brian W.; Journal of Special Education Technology, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 43-56Publication Date: Winter 2004
Article proposes a comparison between educational assessment practices and four selected models of the assistive technology (AT) consideration process as documented from a literature review. The four models presented are as follows: (1) Chambers’ Consideration Model, (2) Education Tech Points: A Framework for Assistive Technology Planning, (3) the Student Environment Tasks Tools (SETT) Framework, and (4) Unifying Functional Model. Chambers’ model contains a series of open-ended questions arranged in a flowchart configuration. The initial question addresses the student’s needs within the educational program from a deficit perspective. The model facilitates documentation of the consideration process, and supports evidence gathering as the team attempts to answer each question. The Education Tech Points model is based on a process associated with the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services. The developers of the model propose that the model integrates AT into the special education service delivery process. The SETT framework focuses the attention of the individualized education plan team on four explicit areas: (1) the student, (2) the student’s environment, (3) the tasks required for active participation in the environment, and (4) the tools (AT) that enable student to access environments, participate, and gain skills or enhance performance. A series of questions in each of the four areas are intended to stimulate thought, promote dialogue and consensus among team members, and guide the decision-making process. The Unifying Functional Model places emphasis on the interrelationships among numerous dynamic elements, including home and school environments, the student’s personal perceptions, and resources available to the student. All of the elements guide the functional response of the school team. The strengths and limitations of the AT consideration models are discussed, and recommendations for future research and practices are presented.
Published by: Exceptional Innovations (Website:http://www.exinn.net)
Technology and Media Division (TAM) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) (Web Site: http://www.tamcec.org )
This publication is included in the library of the National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), accession number J47632
