Integrating AI-Enhanced AAC into the IEP: Supporting Indepe…

Dec 22/Jan 23 Closing The Gap Solutions - Collaborating With Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Users Gains A New Perspective To Best Support Clients By Lydia Dawley

augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

Integrating AI-Enhanced AAC into the IEP: Supporting Independent Authorship for Students who use AAC Part 2 of a 3-part series: The intersection of artificial intelligence, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), and writing instruction for students who need and use AAC

INTRODUCTION Assistive technology (AT) tools and services required by a student’s IEP team to help the student make progress toward and access their general education curriculum are guaranteed under IDEA. AT has a long history of myths, many dispelled in the U.S. Department of Education’s Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices, where the facts align with what those of us in AT have been saying for decades: these tools are about equity, not unfair advantage. In our first article in this three-part series on AAC, Writing, and AI, we explored the fears that have accompanied every wave of new technology in education. We looked at how the arrival of AI has amplified long-standing worries about “cheating” for all students who require AT devices and services, including students who use AAC. Consider Maria, a 9th grader who uses an eye-gaze AAC device. She can participate in class discussions by answering yes/no questions, providing keyword responses, and crafting

short 2-3 word sentences using her eyegaze AAC system. With AI-supported predictive text on her device, Maria could choose from contextually relevant vocabulary leading to sentence suggestions after only a few selections, reducing the physical effort of writing and allowing her to focus on her ideas. Consider DeShawn, a middle school student who also uses an eye-gaze AAC device, can select words efficiently with predictive text but struggles with organizing his ideas into a logical flow. With an AI planning feature on his device generates a topic outline from his brainstormed words, giving him a clear path for drafting. For the first time, DeShawn would be able to structure and complete a multi-paragraph essay independently. In both cases, AI is not replacing the student’s thinking; it is scaffolding the act of writing so their ideas can take shape on the page. The students still decide what to say, choose from suggestions, revise their work, and approve the final product. Just as spellcheck doesn’t compose an essay for a student without disabilities, AI in AAC doesn’t invent the message; it

SHARON REDMON , M.S. ATP. Sharon is a SpEd, GenEd teacher, and AT Specialist with almost 30 years of experience. She holds an M.S. in Adaptive Education: Assistive Technology from St. Norbert College and ATP from RESNA and is a Doctoral Candidate at Penn State University. Sharon's passion for AT and especially AAC began with her first teaching assignment in WI, where she became involved in WATI, and continues today with the WI AAC Network school committee and founding member of the Wisconsin Assistive Technology Regional Networks (WATRN). She also serves as a member of the Education Committee for USSAAC. Her varied career placements within WI, WA, and overseas schools have given her unique opportunities to combine her passion for AAC, literacy, and Assistive Technology. She is passionate about sharing her experiences with others so that we can all continue to learn together BRENDA DEL MONTE , MA, CCC-SLP. Brenda is a speech language pathologist and an assistive technology evaluator and facilitator. Brenda Del Monte is a co-founder of Believe Beyond Ability, a non-profit organization that evaluates, determines, provides and trains those with multiple disabilities on assistive technology to increase independence. Brenda is also an author of the newly published book, "I See You In There," a collection of stories from her 20+ years of experience working with children and adults with disabilities. She is currently a co-host of the Awe and Wonder Podcast hosted by the Special Ed Tech Center.

BACK TO CONTENTS

reduces barriers so the message can be created more effectively. In this second article, we shift the focus to the two-fold nature of writing: 1. Transcription: the physical act of getting words onto the page.

academic participation. This means the team must identify, document, and connect the student’s needs to the specific AI- enhanced supports they will use, ensuring those supports are available and taught consistently across settings. To do this effectively, AT and AI considerations should be woven throughout the IEP, including: • Consideration of Special Factors: Assistive Technology (AT Consideration Page) The team must address whether the student requires AT devices or services. If the answer is “yes,” this must lead to documentation in other sections of the IEP. This is the critical starting point for noting AI- powered AAC features. • Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance: Describe current abilities, access methods, and barriers; note how AI features may address these challenges. o Note: The Present Levels of Performance (PLOP) should describe the student’s access and performance both without the assistive technology tool or other supports in place and with the tool/supports in place. This side-by-side context helps the IEP team understand the impact of the technology/supports on the student’s participation and outcomes. Throughout this article, we offer further examples and descriptions of how to capture this in writing. Including both perspectives is essential for showing how the AT, such as AI-enhanced AAC, reduces barriers, supports skill development, and enables access to the curriculum. Example: PLOP Written Expression and Communication With AT supports: Maria demonstrates the ability to independently produce structured written work when provided with appropriate assistive technology supports. With access to AI-based writing tools, she can compose a paragraph that includes a topic sentence and three supporting details. When using a keyboard with word prediction features, Maria selects appropriate words from a list of five predicted options with accuracy. Without AT supports: In the absence of technology tools, her written and expressive output is limited to responding to yes/ no questions, providing single keywords, or selecting from a set of three choices presented by her communication partner. These patterns indicate that Maria’s access to robust assistive technology significantly increases the complexity and independence of her written expression. • Annual Goals and Objectives: Include goals that reflect learning to use AI features for transcription, writing process skills, or both. • Supplementary Aids and Services: Document training and support for staff, peers, and families to ensure consistent use. • Accommodations: Specify how and when the AI- enhanced AAC will be available.

2. Process: the cognitive work of planning, creating, revising, and refining ideas.

For students who need or use AAC, both of these areas can be labor-intensive. Physical access challenges, slow message generation, and limited vocabulary access can make transcription difficult. Limited experience with writing instruction can affect planning, organizing, editing, and word choice. In our first article, we reframed co-authorship not as “cheating,” but as a natural and necessary part of writing for all students. We noted that general education students regularly co-construct their work with peers, teachers, and digital tools (e.g., brainstorming together, using grammar checkers, seeking feedback, and refining ideas collaboratively). For students who use AAC, co-authorship often includes communication partners, teachers/therapists, and paraeducators. Often, this type of supported co-authorship can become inconsistent, overly dependent on adult input, or limited to what a support person already knows; however, here we argue that co-authorship using AI is a viable AT tool/support for students. It is essential, however, that planning and documentation in the IEP of AI-supported co- authorship is explicitly embedded into the IEP, to ensure that the student’s ideas remain at the center, that their supports are consistent across settings, and that they have access to the same range of collaborative tools their peers already use. Because the IEP is where AT decisions are formally considered, documented, and implemented, it is the team’s responsibility to explore how AAC tools with AI features (e.g., such as predictive text, context-aware vocabulary, variety of syntax/sentence structures) can support both transcription and the process of writing. This article offers practical ways to document these supports in the IEP so students can access the same range of writing opportunities as their peers. INTRODUCING THE IEP PROCESS FOR AT AND AI The Individualized Education Program (IEP) is the legal and instructional roadmap for ensuring students with disabilities have the supports they need to access and make progress toward the general education curriculum and their IEP goals. Under IDEA, the IEP team must consider assistive technology (AT) for every student and determine whether devices or services, and here we argue including those with AI capabilities, are necessary for the student to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). For students who use AAC, integrating AI features as AT into the IEP is essential for equitable access to communication and

BACK TO CONTENTS

details, and a conclusion.” Writing goals should foster written communication, not rote, laborious tasks like tracing, which can be taxing for students with complex motor needs and limited upper-limb endurance, and have no academic rigor. Consider the case of a ninth-grade student using AAC with WordPower 60 via eye gaze. When I asked her mother about her daughter’s writing goals, the answer was, “We don’t have any writing goals...she can’t use her hands.” This highlights a critical oversight: the absence of writing goals for students who cannot produce written work through traditional means. WRITING GOALS The first step is to ensure that the IEP includes true writing goals that promote meaningful written expression. Even with well-crafted written language goals, students often face significant barriers to producing authentic work. These challenges include selecting vocabulary, maintaining authorship, and ensuring access to the same expressive opportunities as peers. In one instance, a charter school (affiliated with a public school district) was asked whether a student who uses switches and eye gaze could leverage AI to improve the efficiency of her participation. The request was escalated through multiple levels, only to be denied on the grounds that “AI is cheating.” Observation revealed that while this student participated in general education classes (e.g., math, science, social studies, and robotics), she was not provided the same general educational access and placed in a special education English class because writing tasks were deemed too labor-intensive. When I asked how she generated original written content, the staff explained they typically offered her three predetermined choices and she would select one. From an IEP standpoint, this meant her present level of performance involved choosing among ideas provided by others. To be effective, her paraeducator would need deep content knowledge in subjects as diverse as algebra, biology, U.S. history, and literature (the current English focus being Edgar Allan Poe). This dynamic limited her to exercising choice rather than voice, an essential distinction when the goal is authentic authorship. Under these conditions, all of her writing was effectively co-authored with her paraeducator. While co-authorship itself is not inherently problematic and certainly not “cheating”, it becomes limiting when the student cannot access the breadth of vocabulary and ideas available to her peers through the internet and AI tools. General education students regularly co- construct their work with the support of these tools, and this is not seen as a violation of academic integrity. When the English class assignment required students to write a paragraph reflecting on Poe’s work, I provided an AI-generated list of six statements describing Poe’s style. The student chose one, which included the term macabre. While her teacher and

When AT and AI are meaningfully integrated into these key sections, the IEP becomes a clear, actionable plan that supports the student’s growth in independence, authorship, and active participation. REFRAMING WRITING GOALS FOR STUDENTS WITH COMPLEX COMMUNICATION NEEDS When reviewing IEPs, have you ever paused (really looked at?) at the writing goals? It is not uncommon for these goals to read like: “Student will trace his name. Student will write the letter of the week,” or “Student will complete a sentence with the carrier phrase ‘I like…’” While these may reflect penmanship, spelling, or sight-word copying objectives, they do not represent true writing goals. In fact, we know tracing doesn’t equate to writing.

Example of what not to do. Student tracing his name.

Authentic writing goals focus on the creation of meaning, such as: “The student will generate a complete sentence with subject, verb, and predicate” or “The student will compose a paragraph including a topic sentence, three supporting

BACK TO CONTENTS

father knew the word, most paraeducators present did not. Using AI again, we generated synonyms for macabre, and the student selected one that more precisely reflected her intended meaning. This process resulted in a richer, more accurate sentence than the binary “like/dislike” prompts she typically received.

paragraph with a topic sentence and three supporting details, then AI tools for topic generation, vocabulary expansion, or sentence organization can be used to increase rate, accuracy, and the ability to produce a fluid written paragraph. The key is matching the tool to the skill being taught and measured so that the technology scaffolds access without replacing the targeted learning outcome. AT Consideration: Julieta requires the use of her AAC device with embedded AI writing tools to meaningfully and independently participate in written expression activities. Due to her reliance on eye gaze for access, generating written content through spelling and single-word selection is extremely fatiguing and time-consuming, making paragraph-level writing inaccessible without support. As a result, the team has often defaulted to using yes/no questions, which shifts the burden of idea generation to the paraeducator and limits JEN’s responses to the adult’s existing knowledge and assumptions. This approach restricts JEN’s ability to express original ideas, demonstrate her understanding, and engage in authentic writing tasks. The embedded AI tools within her AAC system are essential for co- constructing text, reducing motor and cognitive fatigue, and promoting autonomy and creativity in written expression.

Student is thinking of different vocabulary.

Importantly, the focus was not on spelling, punctuation, or grammar, but on her ability to express three main ideas about Poe’s writing, precisely as the assignment required. This was the first time her written work truly reflected her own voice, supported by tools that expanded her vocabulary beyond what was programmed into her device or known by her support staff. What we are teaching and then measuring determines the tool we choose. If the goal is to measure spelling grade-level words, then features like word prediction are not used. If the goal is to demonstrate basic sentence construction—such as subject-verb-predicate—AI will not be used to generate that structure. However, if the goal is for the student to produce a

Graph of components of including AT/AAC in the IEP

Students in general education classrooms often complete similar assignments at home with access to Google and AI- assisted writing tools. Denying equivalent access to a student with complex access needs creates an inequity, restricting not only efficiency but the richness of thought and expression possible in her work.

BACK TO CONTENTS

PRESENT LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE: WRITTEN EXPRESSION (COMMUNICATION & AT INTEGRATION): PLOP FLUID STATEMENT Julieta is a highly motivated and communicates using an eye gaze AAC device. While she demonstrates a strong understanding of academic content and can express ideas verbally (she cannot express herself verbally as she is non-speaking) or through supported communication, she currently experiences significant barriers in independently generating written work. Julieta’s current AAC setup relies heavily on single-word selection and spelling, which is extremely fatiguing and time-intensive due to her access method. As a result, Julieta is often limited to yes/no question formats, requiring adult prompts and paraeducator- generated ideas. This restricts her ability to engage in authentic writing tasks and limits the expression of her original thoughts. At this time, Julieta’s current assistive technology (AT) supports and supplementary aids and services are not sufficient to support the development of age-appropriate written expression. She cannot independently create a paragraph of writing within a reasonable timeframe, nor can she sustain participation without high levels of adult scaffolding, which inadvertently narrows her communicative range. Integrating the embedded AI features within her AAC device offers a research-supported path toward greater independence. These features, such as predictive text, smart phrasing, and idea- generation tools, enable Julieta to co-create written content with reduced motor demands and cognitive fatigue. According to Zabala (2005), matching technology to Julieta’s unique access and communication needs is essential for promoting independence and participation. Furthermore, the National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI, 2006) found that AT tools used in writing (such as prediction and text support) significantly improved written expression outcomes in students with disabilities. Julieta’s same-aged peers frequently use digital supports such as spell check, grammar correction, synonym suggestion tools, internet research, and collaborative writing platforms. The integration of AI within her AAC device functions as a parallel support, allowing Julieta access to the same level of efficiency and expressive freedom as her peers. With appropriate instruction and support, this technology has the potential to reduce barriers and foster meaningful, independent participation in writing tasks across settings. THE FOLLOWING GOALS WERE DISCUSSED AS POSSIBILITIES FOR HER IEP: Goal Option 1: Transcription Using AI Annual Goal: Given access to her AAC device and an AI writing tool, Julieta will independently transcribe her ideas into written form by generating, selecting, and organizing at least three sentences with minimal support in 4 out of 5 opportunities, as measured by teacher observation and work samples.

Short-Term Objectives: 1. Julieta will use her AAC device to input prompts into an AI tool and generate relevant content on a given topic with 80% accuracy. 2. Julieta will evaluate, select, and organize AI-generated sentences into a logical sequence to form a cohesive paragraph in 80% of opportunities. 3. Julieta will use AAC and AI-based correction tools to improve spelling and vocabulary accuracy in her written responses with 80% accuracy. Goal Option 2: Writing Process Using AI Annual Goal: Given access to and her using AAC and AI tools, with minimal teacher prompting and support, Julieta will collaboratively develop a coherent paragraph related to her coursework, demonstrating idea generation, logical organization, revision, and improved word choice in 4 out of 5 opportunities, as measured by teacher observation and writing samples. Short-Term Objectives: 1. Julieta will generate relevant ideas and contribute to writing structured paragraphs using AI and AAC with minimal prompting in 4 out of 5 trials 2. Julieta will revise AI-generated writing to improve clarity, organization, and word choice using AAC and AI tools with 80% accuracy. 3. The Julieta will incorporate at least one synonym per sentence in written or spoken communication using AAC and AI tools, with minimal teacher prompting and support Goal Option 3: Writing Process Using AAC and AI Annual Goal: Given access to an AAC device and an AI writing tool, Julieta will generate a written response to a prompt, selecting and organizing AI-generated content, with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials. Objectives: 1. The Julieta will use their AAC device to input a writing prompt into the AI tool and generate at least six relevant sentences, in 4 out of 5 opportunities. 2. The Julieta will independently select the three most relevant or appropriate AI-generated sentences to form a coherent paragraph in 80% of trials. 3. The Julieta will organize the selected sentences into a logical sequence in 4 out of 5 opportunities. Goal Option 4: Editing AI-Generated Content Annual Goal: Given AI-generated text, Julieta will use their AAC device and editing tools to revise and refine content for accuracy, coherence, word choice, and grammar, demonstrating

BACK TO CONTENTS

80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials. Objectives:

reframes it as a legitimate accessibility tool under IDEA.

ACCURACY AND CRITICAL REVIEW: AI-generated content should include the human element of the student, teachers and therapists in reviewing, fact-checking, and refining AI output. This not only protects the integrity of student work but also ensures agency and authorship. INTENTIONAL TRAINING AND SUPPORT AI use paired with intentional training for students, educators, paraeducators, and families can lead to success. Consistent modeling and guided practice ensure that AI features are used effectively and embedded in the student’s daily communication and writing routines. GUARDRAILS FOR PRIVACY AND BIAS Schools must choose AI tools that protect the students' privacy and the AI-generated content is vetted for potential ableist language. Recognizing that bias, especially ableist assumptions, can be embedded in technology is a critical part of the ongoing review process. AAC USERS PERSPECTIVES Any discussion of AI in AAC must include the perspectives of AAC users themselves. Too often, technology decisions are made about AAC users rather than with them. Research led by AAC users has highlighted both enthusiasm for AI’s potential and concerns about authorship, accuracy, and the risk of ableist assumptions being built into the tools. AAC users' perspectives remind us that AI should not replace or override the intent of the communicator. Instead, it should be developed and implemented in ways that preserve agency, honor lived experience, and respond directly to the priorities identified by people who rely on AAC every day. Moving the conversation beyond AI’s plausibility into its practical use does not mean ignoring valid concerns. By acknowledging and addressing these issues, we can implement AI-enhanced AAC in ways that promote equity, resist ableism, and prioritize student agency. The choice is not between “full speed ahead” and “never,” but between cautious, informed integration now or the risk of leaving AAC users further behind. CALL TO ACTION Therefore, we call upon practitioners, administrators, and policymakers to take three concrete actions: 1. From Hesitation to Action It’s understandable to have questions about AI in AAC, but delaying its use when it can remove barriers means missed opportunities for students. General education peers are already benefiting from AI tools. If AAC users wait for every concern to be addressed first, the gap in

1. The Julieta will evaluate AI-generated sentences for factual accuracy and relevance, correctly identifying and revising at least two inaccuracies per writing sample, in 4 out of 5 opportunities. 2. The Julieta will edit AI-generated sentences by modifying grammar, punctuation, and word choice, with 80% accuracy as measured by teacher observation and writing samples. 3. The Julieta will use an AI spelling and grammar correction tool to review and finalize a paragraph, making at least three corrections per writing sample, in 4 out of 5 opportunities. ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS WHEN USING AI IN AAC FOR WRITING We believe there is a strong case for the use of AI-enhanced AAC to support students who use AAC. These tools have the potential to remove long-standing barriers to transcription and the writing process, barriers that, left unaddressed, often limit authentic authorship and access to the general education curriculum. At the same time, we recognize that AI does not arrive without caution. Educators, families, and AAC specialists are right to raise questions about bias, authorship, accuracy, and the potential for ableism in how the technology is applied. The goal is not to ignore these concerns, but to address them head-on while ensuring that students are not left behind as their peers move forward with new tools. PRESERVING AUTHORSHIP AND AGENCY Early adoption must be anchored in the principle that AI is a scaffold, not a replacement for student-generated ideas. Students should remain the decision-makers: selecting, editing, and approving AI suggestions so that their voice and intent remain intact. This approach mirrors the way nondisabled peers use tools like Grammarly or Google Docs to refine their work, without surrendering ownership. PROACTIVE EQUITY Waiting to adopt AI features until every concern is resolved risks widening an existing equity gap. Peers are already using AI for idea generation, organization, and revision. Denying these tools to AAC users in the name of “caution” inadvertently reinforces the ableist assumption that their work must be completed without the same supports others take for granted. ETHICAL TRANSPARENCY Introducing AI with AAC should come with clear communication to staff, peers, and families about what the technology does, and does not, do. This helps prevent misconceptions that AI is “doing the work” for the student and

BACK TO CONTENTS

access and opportunity will grow.

Research-Based Practices for Teaching Students with Moderate to Severe Intellectual Disability.

2. Centering Student Voice Through the IEP An IEP is most effective when it clearly connects a student’s needs to specific supports, including AI- enhanced AAC. Documenting Present Levels, goals, and training ensures technology is used consistently and meaningfully. Limiting students to preselected words or yes/no responses restricts their authorship; embedding AI-enhanced AAC into the IEP allows them to expand ideas, build vocabulary, and participate fully across settings. This keeps their voice at the center of their learning. The next IEP meeting is the right time to start. 3. Thoughtful Integration With Guardrails AI in AAC must be implemented with care, training for staff, clear expectations for use, and safeguards for privacy, accuracy, and bias are essential. Moving forward doesn’t mean rushing; it means building a plan that protects student agency while expanding opportunities for meaningful writing. Teachers, therapists, administrators, and families share the responsibility to ensure equitable access so every student’s voice is heard and valued. CONCLUSION True writing instruction is about empowering students to construct and share their own ideas, not simply producing marks on a page. For students who use AAC, achieving this requires both intentional IEP goals and equitable access to the tools their peers already use. When we expand our definition of “writing” beyond handwriting and spelling, and embrace technology, including AI, as a legitimate means of authorship, we give every student the chance to develop a genuine voice. NEXT IN OUR SERIES: We’ll explore the critical role educators play in supporting students who use AAC to ensure their voices are heard and their authorship remains their own. From fostering independence to guiding ethical and effective AI use, we’ll look at practical strategies that keep student agency at the center of learning. Note: ChatGPT and Grammarly were used by the authors to organize and edit this article. REFERENCES Beukelman, D. R., & Light, J. C. (2020). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Griffiths, Tom & Slaughter, Rohan & Waller, Annalu. (2024). Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): community consultation on risks, benefits and the need for a code of practice. Journal of Enabling Technologies. 10.1108/JET-01-2024-0007. Lahm, E. A., Bausch, M. E., Hasselbring, T. S., & Blackhurst, A. E. (2001). National Assistive Technology Research Institute. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340101600302 (Original work published 2001) Light, J. C., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/0743 4618.2014.885080 Lorah ER, MacNeil S, Zimmerman T, Rackensperger T, Holyfield C, Caldwell N, Dragut EC, Vucetic S. Spurring Innovation in AAC Technology through Collaborative Dreaming and Needs Finding with Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Who Use AAC. Semin Speech Lang. 2024 Nov;45(5):461-474. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1791789. Epub 2024 Oct 15. PMID: 39406366. McNaughton, David & Rackensperger, Tracy & McLemore, Lance. (2025). Supporting meaningful participation in society by adults with developmental disabilities who need and use AAC: lived experiences, key research findings, and future directions. Augmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985). 41. 1-14. 10.1080/07434618.2025.2504497. Nica, E., Sabie, O. M., & Oaia, D. C. (2024). Artificial intelligence– assisted education technology, personalized learning algorithms, and sustainable academic performance in digital classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 5(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/educ5010011 Rashid, M. M., Atilgan, N., Dobres, J., Day, S., Penkova, V., Küçük, M., Clapp, S. R., & Sawyer, B. D. (2024). Humanizing AI in Education: A Readability Comparison of LLM and Human-Created Educational Content. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 10711813241261689. https://doi. org/10.1177/10711813241261689

Jimenez, B., Courtade, G., & Fosbinder, J. (2024). Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Enhance Implementation of

BACK TO CONTENTS

Reed, P., & Bowser, G. (2012). Assistive technology and the IEP. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessible Educational Materials. Retrieved from https://aem.cast.org Sennott, S. C., Akagi, L., Lee, M., & Rhodes, A. (2019). AAC and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Topics in Language Disorders, 39(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1097/ TLD.0000000000000197 U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Myths and facts surrounding assistive technology devices. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/AT-Myths-and-Facts.pdf Zabala, J. S. (2005). Using the SETT framework to level the learning field for students with disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2(1), 1–15.

BACK TO CONTENTS

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8

www.closingthegap.com

Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator