This article describes an experimental system for administering multiple-choice math tests to students who are visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. Using a new audio-tactile computer peripheral device called the Talking Tactile Tablet, the authors created a preliminary version of a self-voicing test that included 12 items, all of which referred to a graphical element. Users could take the test, working through the items at their own speed and learning about associated tactile graphic diagrams by pressing on various features to hear appropriate audio descriptions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L., & McGill-FranzenA. (1992). Unintended effects of reform in New York. Educational Policy, 4, 397–414.
2.
BennettR. E. (1999). Computer-based testing of examinees with disabilities: On the road to generalized accommodation. In MessickS. (Ed.), Assessment in higher education: Issues of access, quality, student development, and public policy (pp. 181–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BennettR. E., RockD. A., & JireleT. (1985). GRE score level, test completion, and reliability for visually impaired, physically handicapped, and nonhandicapped groups. Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 9–21.
4.
BennettR. E., RockD. A., & KaplanB. A. (1987). SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 44–55.
5.
ColemanP. J. (1990). Exploring visually handicapped children's understanding of length (math concepts). (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 0071.
6.
HaneyW. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41), [Online]. Available: <http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41>.
McDonnellL. M., McLaughlinM. W., & MorisonP. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
McGrewK. S., ThurlowM. L., ShrinerJ. G., & SpiegelA. N. (1992). Students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs.Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
10.
ShrinerJ. G., & ThurlowM. L. (1992). State special education outcomes 1991.Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
11.
ThurlowM., McGrewK., TindalG., ThompsonS., YsseldykeJ., & ElliottJ. (2000). Assessment accommodations research: Considerations for design and analysis. (Technical report 26, Research report 143). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
12.
ThurlowM. L., ScottD. L., & YsseldykeJ. E. (1995a). A compilation of states’ guidelines for accommodations in assessments for students with disabilities (Synthesis report 18). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
13.
ThurlowM. L., ScottD. L., & YsseldykeJ. E. (1995b). A compilation of states’ guidelines for including students with disabilities in assessments (Synthesis report 17). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
14.
TindalG., & FuchsL. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations.Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
15.
WillinghamW. W., RagostaM., BennettR. E., BraunH., RockD. A., & PowersD. E. (1988). Testing handicapped people.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
YsseldykeJ., & ThurlowM. (1994). Educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Special Services in the Schools, 9(2), 1–10.
17.
YsseldykeJ., ThurlowM., McGrewK., & VanderwoodM. (1994). Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments (Synthesis report 13). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
18.
ZlatosB. (1994). Don't test, don't tell: Is “academic red-shirting” skewing the way we rank our schools?American School Board Journal, 181, 24–28.
