Lancioni, et. al., 1999). They found that picture cues presented digi- tally are more effective than pictures presented manually on cards and that personal computer systems with auditory prompts and text are more effective than traditional written schedules. Mech- ling (2007) found digital devices to be effective to self-initiate, self-instruct, self-maintain and self-monitor one’s behavior and task performance. AT has been found to be very effective as a self- management tool. AT for Reading for Students with Low incidence Disabilities There is often a presumption that students with significant disabilities including intellectual disabilities will not learn to read. When present, this presumption can lead to the denial of reading instruction, which results in students not learning to read (Keefe & Copeland, 2011; Ruppar, Gaffney, & Dymond, 2015). Much of the research on reading for students with severe disabilities in the past has been focused on sight word memorization or drills in decontextualized sub-skills. That research will not be reviewed here. Rather, we’ll look at the research about the broader reading and writing experiences that lead to the development of literacy skills (Erickson, Hanser, Hatch, & Sanders, 2009; Erickson, Hatch, & Clendon, 2010). For example, when children write, they attempt to read what they have written. If an adult asks the child what he or she wrote, the child will explain it. Speaking and listening occur as part of the overall literacy experience. Effective literacy instruc- tion has been shown to develop the traditional reading/literacy skills for children with significant disabilities, including intellectual disabilities. An excellent free resource about effective literacy in- struction is Erickson, K., Hanser, G., Hatch, P. & Sanders, E. (2009). Research-Based Practices for Creating Access to the General Curricu- lum in Reading and Literacy for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities , https://www.kcdsg.org/files/content/Cheryl%20Jor- gensen_Literacy%20and%20Severe%20Dis.pdf. Access to Information vs. Access to Learning Rose and Meyer (2002) were the first to make a distinction be- tween access to information and access to learning. The distinc- tion is important because providing quick access to information may decrease the opportunity for a child to learn new skills and thus have more access to learning. The use of picture supported text is an example of this. Hatch (2009) found that it may actually increase confusion, limit literacy learning in the long run, and in- terfere with learning opportunities. Several studies have conclud- ed that placing pictures with text slows the rate of word learning (Pufpaff, Blischak, & Lloyd, 2000; Rose & Furr, 1984; Saunder & Sol- man, 1984). While picture supported text may provide access to content information, it may actually impede the more long term learning of reading and other literacy skills. That is not to say that there is no place for the use of picture supported text, but rather to know that its use will not automatically lead to the development
of decoding skills. Picture supported reading and writing can be very useful and may be chosen as the best means for a student to access information and communicate in writing, but it’s not a scaf- fold to the development of traditional literacy skill. One reason for this may be the actual figure (printed word vs. picture symbol) on which the eyes and the child’s efforts are focused. There are many components to literacy and they involve focusing on the building blocks of reading and writing. One small study provides a glimpse of the importance of invented spelling and later reading skill. Ouellette and Senechal (2017) found that alphabetic knowledge and phonological awareness are developed through practice. If a student does not practice using letters to represent sounds when writing or work to decode printed letters to make meaning, those skills will not develop. AT Use by Adults with Significant Intellectual Disabilities (ID) It appears that AT can be effective in the workplace. Morash- Macneil, Johnson, & Ryan (2017) found AT was successful for in- creasing work performance of individuals with ID in respect to productivity, navigation, time management and task completion. Cullen, Alber-Morgen, & Sheila (2015) found that prompting with AT is more effective than low tech methods and Sauer, Parks, & Heyn (2010) found that AT results in increases in accuracy, inde- pendence and generalization. Similarly, Sauer et al. (2010) indicat- ed that following the implementation of AT, there was an increase in accuracy, independence and generalization of skills in the work- place. Technology in these studies included hand held computers, iPads, iPods, smart phones and vibrating watches. In other research, Bryant, Seok, Ok, & Bryant (2012) surveyed care givers and found that the majority of clients were not us- ing AT devices to support their needs in identified areas of living (home living, community living, life-long learning, employment, health & safety, social, protection & advocacy). In four of the seven areas, at least 60% of clients were not using AT devices as part of their support system. This research is several years old and hope- fully, this picture will change as use of AT becomes more pervasive. Part Two: Research on AT use by Students with High Incidence Disabilities This has been a brief overview of some of the valuable research about AT. Part 2 of this two-part series will look at research about AT use by students with high incidence disabilities, where the focus is primarily on reading and writing. Resources to continue to keep informed about AT research will also be included. In the meantime, consider visiting www.natenetwork.org/resources where ongoing information about AT Research is frequently up- dated.
26
www.closingthegap.com/membership | February / March, 2019 Closing The Gap © 2019 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACK TO CONTENTS
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator