Research about Assistive Technology: 2000–2006. What Have We Learned?

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to offer a review of research on the use of assistive technology for students with disabilities and some reflections on the nature of knowledge that is being produced by researchers who are examining these issues. We analyzed studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2006 that investigated the use of assistive technology with students served under IDEA guidelines. We located 122 studies that met our criteria. We summarize the types and age of students with whom these studies were conducted, the outcomes, the types of designs used, and the journals in which the studies were published. We conclude with a discussion of implications for research and practice.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

* Abbott

Cribb

(2001). Special schools, inclusion, and the World Wide Web—the emerging research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 331–342.

* Abner

G. H.

(2002). Implementation of assistive technology with students who are visually impaired: Teachers' readiness. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96, 98–105.

* Alobiedat

(2005). Comparing pre-service technology standards with technology skills of special educators in Southwestern Michigan. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32, 385–395.

Alper

Raharinirina

(2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47–64.

* Anderson

C. L.

Petch-Hogan

(2001). The impact of technology use in special education field experience on preservice teachers' perceived technology expertise. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3), 27–44.

* Angelo

D. H.

(2000). Impact of augmentative and alternative communication devices on families. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 37–47.

* Ashton

T. M.

(2005). Perceived knowledge, attitudes, and challenges of AT use in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 60–63.

* Ayres

K. M.

Langone

(2002). Acquisition and generalization of purchasing skills using a video enhanced computer-based instructional program. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17, 15–28.

* Basham

Palla

Pianfetti

(2005). An integrated framework used to increase preservice teachers NETS-T Ability. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 257–276.

10.

* Beck

A. R.

Bock

Thompson

J. R.

Kosuwan

(2002). Influence of communicative competence and augmentative and alternative communication technique on children's attitudes toward a peer who uses AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 217–227.

11.

* Beck

A. R.

Fritz

Keller

Dennis

(2000). Attitudes of school-aged children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 239–249.

12.

* Beck

A. R.

Kingsbury

Neff

Dennis

(2000). Influence of length of augmented message on children's attitudes toward peers who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 239–249.

13.

* Beck

A. R.

Thompson

J. R.

Clay

S. L.

Hutchins

Vogt

W. P.

Romaniak

Sokolowski

(2001). Preservice professionals' attitudes toward children who use augmentative/alternative communication. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 255–271.

14.

* Beck

(2002). Emerging literacy through assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 44–48.

15.

* Blankenship

T. L.

Ayres

K. M.

Langone

(2005). Effects of computer-based cognitive mapping on reading comprehension for students with emotional behavior disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 15–23.

16.

* Boon

R. T.

Burke

M. D.

Fore

III (2006). The impact of cognitive organizers on student success in secondary social studies classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(1), 5–16.

17.

* Bottge

B. A.

Heinrichs

Chan

Mehta

Z. D.

Watson

(2003). Effects of video-based and applied problems on the procedural math skills of average- and low-achieving adolescents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 5–22.

18.

Brantlinger

Jiminez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–208.

19.

Brown

A. L.

(1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

20.

* Burgstahler

Cronheim

(2001). Supporting peer-peer and mentor-protégé relationships on the Internet. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 59–74.

21.

* Burke

Beukelman

D. R.

Ball

Horn

C. A.

(2002). Augmentative and alternative communication technology learning part 1: Augmentative and alternative communication specialists. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 242–249.

22.

* Burke

Beukelman

D. R.

Ball

Horn

C. A.

(2002). Augmentative and alternative communication technology learning part 2: Preprofessional students. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 250–254.

23.

* Buzhardt

Abbott

Greenwood

Tapia

(2005). Usability testing of the class wide peer tutoring-learning management system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 19–29.

24.

* Carter

(2003). Communicative spontaneity of children with high support needs who use augmentative and alternative communication systems I: Classroom spontaneity, mode, and function. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 141–154.

25.

* Carter

(2003). Communicative spontaneity of children with high support needs who use augmentative and alternative communication systems II: Antecedents and effectiveness of communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 155–169.

26.

* Cohen

Hodson

O'Hare

Boyle

Durrani

McCartney

Mattey

Naftalin

Watson

(2005). Effects of computer-based intervention through acoustically-modified speech (Fast ForWord) in severe mixed expressive-receptive language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Science, 48, 715–729.

27.

* Cole

Swinth

(2004). Comparison of the TouchFree Switch to a physical switch: Children's abilities and preferences: A pilot study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 19–30.

28.

* Colwell

Jeffs

Mallett

(2005). Initial requirements of deaf students for video: Lessons learned from an evaluation of a digital video application. Learning, Media, and Technology, 30, 201–207.

29.

* Corn

(2002). Access to multimedia presentations for students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96, 197–211.

30.

* Dattilo

Guerin

Cory

Williams

(2001). Effects of computerized leisure education on self-determination of youth with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 5–17.

31.

* Dawson

Venn

M. L.

Gunter

P. L.

(2000). The effects of teacher versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 105–113.

32.

* DiCarlo

C. F.

Banajee

(2000). Using voice output devices to increase initiations of young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 191–199.

33.

* Dimitriadi

(2001). Evaluating the use of multimedia authoring with dyslexic learners: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 265–275.

34.

* Drager

K. D. R.

(2003). The performance of typically developing 2 ½ year olds on dynamic display AAC technologies with different system layouts and language organizations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 298–312.

35.

* Dudek

Beck

A. R.

Thompson

J. R.

(2006). The influence of AAC device type, dynamic vs. static screen, on peer attitudes. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21, 27–28.

36.

* Dugan

L. M.

Campbell

P. H.

Wilcox

M. J.

(2006). Making decisions about assistive technology with infants and toddlers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(1), 25–33.

37.

Edyburn

D. L.

(2004). 2003 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 57–80.

38.

Edyburn

D. L.

(2003). 2002 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 5–26.

39.

Edyburn

D. L.

(2000). 1999 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 7–18.

40.

Edyburn

Higgins

Boone

(Eds.). (2005). Handbook of special education technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by Design.

41.

* Elliot

L. B.

Foster

Stinson

(2003). A qualitative study of teachers' acceptance of speech-to-text transcription system in high school and college classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 45–59.

42.

* Ely

Emerson

R. W.

Maggiore

Rothbert

O'Connell

Hudson

(2006). Increased content knowledge of students with visual impairments as a result of extended descriptions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21, 31–40.

43.

* Epstein

J. N.

Willis

M. G.

Conners

C. K.

Johnson

D. E.

(2001). Use of a technological prompting device to aid a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to initiate and complete daily tasks: An exploratory study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 19–28.

44.

* Faris-Cole

Lewis

(2001). Exploring speech recognition technology: Children with learning and emotional/behavioral disorders. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 11(1), 3–12.

45.

* Ferretti

R. P.

MacArthur

C. D.

Okolo

C. M.

(2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59–71.

46.

Feuer

M. J.

Towne

Shavelson

R. J.

(2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31, 4–14.

47.

Fitzgerald

G. E.

(1996). Empirical advances in technology-assisted instruction for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 526–553.

48.

Gersten

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

Coyne

Greenwood

Innocenti

M. S.

(2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–165.

49.

* Goldsworthy

R. C.

Barab

S. A.

Goldsworthy

E. L.

(2000). The STAR project: Enhancing adolescents' social understanding through video-based, multimedia scenarios. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 13–26.

50.

* Greenwood

C. R.

Arreaga-Mayer

Utley

Gavin

K. M.

Terry

B. J.

(2001). Class wide peer tutoring learning management system: Applications with elementary-level English Language Learners. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 34–47.

51.

* Gregor

Dickinson

Macaffer

Andreasen

(2003). SeeWord? A personal word processing environment for dyslexic computer users. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 321–355.

52.

* Gumpel

T. P.

Nativ-Ari-Am

(2001). Evaluation of a technology for teaching complex social skills to young adults with visual and cognitive impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 95, 95–107.

53.

* Hamm

E. M.

Mistrett

S. G.

Ruffino

A. G.

(2006). Play outcomes and satisfaction with toys and technology of young children with special needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(1), 29–36.

54.

* Hetzroni

(2002). Augmentative and alternative communication in Israel: Results from a family survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 255–266.

55.

* Hetzroni

O. E.

Belfiore

P. J.

(2000). Preschoolers with communication impairments play shrinking Kim: An interactive computer storytelling intervention for teaching Blissymbols. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 16, 260–269.

56.

* Hetzroni

O. E.

Lloyd

L. L.

(2000). Shrinking Kim: Effects of active versus passive computer instruction on the learning of element and compound Blissymbols. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 95–106.

57.

* Hetzroni

O. E.

Shrieber

(2004).Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general education classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 143–154.

58.

* Higgins

E. L.

Raskind

M. H.

(2005). The compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 31–40.

59.

* Higgins

E. L.

Raskind

M. H.

(2000). Speaking to read: The effects of continuous vs. discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 19–30.

60.

* Hochstein

D. D.

McDaniel

M. A.

Nettleton

(2004). Recognition and vocabulary in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: A comparison of two speech coding schemes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 45–62.

61.

Horner

R. H.

Carr

E. G.

Halle

McGee

Odom

Wolery

(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–180.

62.

* Howell

R. D.

Erickson

Stanger

Wheaton

J. E.

(2000). Evaluation of a computer-based program on the reading performance of first grade students with potential for reading failure. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 5–14.

63.

* Hutcherson

Langone

Ayres

Clees

(2004). Computer-assisted instruction to teach items selection in grocery stores: An assessment of acquisition and generalization. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 33–42.

64.

* Hunt

Soto

Maier

Muller

Goetz

(2002). Collaborative teaming to support students with alternative communication needs in the general education classroom. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 20–35.

65.

* Irish

(2002). Using peg- and keyword mnemonics and computer-assisted instruction to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 17(4), 29–40.

66.

* Jeffs

Behrmann

Bannan-Ritland

(2006). Assistive technology and literacy learning: Reflections of parents and children. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(1), 37–44.

67.

* Jerome

Barbetta

P. M.

(2005). The effects of active student responding during computer-assisted instruction on social studies learning by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 13–23.

68.

* Johnson

J. M.

Inglebret

Jones

Ray

(2006). Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 85–89.

69.

* Judge

S. L.

(2001). Computer applications in programs for young children with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 29–40.

70.

* Kapperman

(2002). Survey of the use of assistive technology by Illinois students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96, 106–108.

71.

* Kent-Walsh

Light

(2003). General education teachers' experiences with inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 104–124.

72.

* Kim

Vaughn

Klingner

J. K.

Woodruf

A. L.

Reutebuch

C. K.

Kouzekanani

(2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through computer-assisted instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 235–248.

73.

* Kim-Rupnow

W. S.

Burgstahler

(2004). Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding the value of technology-based support activities on postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 43–56.

74.

* Koester

H. H.

(2004). Usage, performance, and satisfaction outcomes for experienced users of speech recognition. Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 41, 739–755.

75.

* Kolter

A. L.

Tam

(2002). Effectiveness of using discrete utterance speech recognition software. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 18, 137–146.

76.

* Koul

Hester

(2006). Effects of repeated listening experiences on the recognition of synthetic speech by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 49, 47–58.

77.

* Laffey

J. M.

Espinosa

Moore

Lodree

(2003). Supporting learning and behavior of at-risk young children: Computers in urban education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 423–440.

78.

Lahm

E. A.

(2005). Improving practice using assistive technology knowledge and skills. In Edyburn

Higgins

Boone

(Eds.), (2005). Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 721–746). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

79.

* Lahm

E. A.

(2002). Factors that influence assistive technology decision making. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(1), 15–26.

80.

* Lancaster

P. E.

Lancaster

S. C.

Schumaker

J. B.

Deshler

D. D.

(2006). The efficacy of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a test-taking strategy to students with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 17–30.

81.

* Lancaster

P. E.

Schumaker

J. B.

Deshler

D. D.

(2002). The development and validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 277–302.

82.

* Lange

A. A.

McPhillips

Mulhern

Wylie

(2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13–22.

83.

* Lebel

Olshtain

Weiss

P. L.

(2005). Teaching teachers about augmentative and alternative communication: Opportunities and challenges of a Web-based course. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 264–277.

84.

* Lee

Vail

C. O.

(2005). Computer-based reading instruction for young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 5–18.

85.

* Lewis

Neill

(2001). Portable computers for teachers and support services working with pupils with special educational needs: An evaluation of the 1999 United Kingdom Department of Education scheme. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 301–315.

86.

* Light

J. C.

Drager

McCarthy

Mellott

Millar

Parrish

Parsons

Rhaods

Ward

Welliver

(2004). Performance of typically developing four- and five-year old children with AAC systems using different language organization techniques. Alternative and Augmentative Communication, 20, 63–88.

87.

* Lilienfeld

Alant

(2005). The social interaction of an adolescent who uses AAC: The evaluation of a peer training program. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 278–294.

88.

* Lilienfeld

Alant

(2002). Attitudes of children toward an unfamiliar peer using an AAC device and with and without voice output. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 137–146.

89.

* Lindstrand

(2001). Parents of children with disabilities evaluate the importance of the computer in child development. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(2), 43–52.

90.

* Lynch

Fawcett

A. J.

Nicolson

R. I.

Computer-Assisted reading intervention in a secondary school: An evaluation study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 333–348.

91.

* MacArthur

C. A.

Cavalier

A. R.

(2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71, 43–59.

92.

* McCarthy

Light

McNaughton

Grodzicki

Jones

Panek

Parkin

(2006). Re-designing scanning to reduce learning demands: The performance of typically developing 2-year-olds. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 269–283.

93.

* Maki

H. S.

Vauras

M. S.

Vainio

(2002). Reflective spelling strategies for elementary school students with severe writing difficulties: A case study. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 25, 189–191.

94.

* Maushak

N. J.

Kelley

Blodgett

(2001). Preparing teachers for the inclusive classroom: A preliminary study of attitudes and knowledge of assistive technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 419–431.

95.

* Mechling

L. C.

(2004). Effects of multimedia, computer-based instruction on grocery shopping fluency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 23–34.

96.

* Mechling

L. C.

Gast

D. L.

(2003). Multi-media computer-based instruction to teach grocery word associations and store locations: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 38, 62–76.

97.

* Mechling

L. C.

Gast

D. L.

Barthold

(2003). Multi-media, computer-based instruction to teach students with moderate intellectual disabilities to use a debit card to make purchases. Exceptionality, 11, 239–254.

98.

* Mechling

L. C.

Gast

D. L.

Langone

(2002). Computer-based video instruction to teach persons with moderate intellectual disabilities to read grocery aisle signs and locate items. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 224–240.

99.

* Mechling

L. C.

Langone

(2000). The effects of a computer-based instructional program with video anchors on the use of photographs for prompting augmentative communication. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental disabilities, 35, 90–105.

100.

* Meyers

Collier

(2003). Creating on-line individual education plans: Preservice teachers learn to make data-based decisions. Action in Teacher Education, 25(2), 23–34.

101.

* Michaels

C. A.

McDermott

(2003). Assistive technology integration in special education teacher preparation: Program coordinators' perceptions of current attainment and importance. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 29–41.

102.

* Millar

D. C.

Light

J. D.

McNaughton

D. B.

, (2004). The effect of direct instruction and writer's workshop on the early writing skills of children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 164–178.

103.

* Mirenda

Turoldo

McAvoy

(2006). The impact of word prediction software on the written output of students with physical disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 5–12.

104.

* Mirenda

Wilk

Carson

(2000). A retrospective analysis of technology use patterns of students with autism over a five-year period. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3), 5–16.

105.

* Mitchell

M. J.

Fox

B. J.

(2001). The effects of computer software for developing phonological awareness in low-progress readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 315–332.

106.

* Montgomery

D. J.

Karlan

G. R.

Coutinho

(2001). The effectiveness of word processor spell checker programs to produce target words for misspellings generated by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(2), 27–41.

107.

* Moore

Chen

McGrath

Powell

N. J.

(2005). Collaborative virtual environment technology for people with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 231–243.

108.

* Moore

H. W.

Wilcox

M. J.

(2006). Characteristics of early intervention practitioners and their confidence in using assistive technology. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(1), 25–24.

109.

* Morgan

R. L.

Gerity

B. P.

Ellerd

D. A.

(2000). Using video and CD-ROM technology in a job preference inventory for youth with severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3), 25–33.

110.

* Mortsen

(2002). Action research on cognitive rescaling. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 52–28.

111.

* Norman

J. M.

Collins

B. C.

Shuster

J. W.

(2001). Using an instructional package including video technology to teach self-help skills to elementary students with mental disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3), 5–18.

112.

Odom

S. L.

Brantlinger

Gersten

Horner

R. H.

Thompson

Harris

K. R.

(2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.

113.

Okolo

C. M.

Bahr

C. M.

Rieth

H. J.

(1993). A retrospective view of computer-based instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(2), 1–27.

114.

Okolo

C. M.

Cavalier

A. R.

Ferretti

R. P.

MacArthur

C. A.

(1995, January. Projects funded by the Technology, Media, and Materials Program, 1986–1994. What have we learned? Newark: University of Delaware.

115.

* Parette

H. P.

Huer

M. B.

Brotherson

M. J.

, (2001). Related service personnel perceptions of team AAC decision-making across culture. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 69–82.

116.

* Patel

Khamis-Dakwar

(2005). An AAC program for special education teachers: A case study of Palestinian Arab teachers in Israel. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 205–217.

117.

* Pindiprolu

S. S.

Peterson

Rule

Lignugaris/Kraft

(2003). Using Web-mediated experiential case-based instruction to teach functional behavioral assessment skills. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 1–16.

118.

* Puckett

K. S.

(2004). Project ACCESS: Field testing an assistive technology toolkit for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 5–17.

119.

* Riccomini

P. J.

Stecker

P. M.

(2005). Effects of technology-enhanced practice on scoring accuracy of oral reading fluency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 5–12.

120.

* Riemer-Reiss

M. L.

Wacker

R. R.

(2000). Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(3), 44–50.

121.

* Rieth

H. J.

Bryant

D. P.

Kinzer

C. K.

Colburn

L. K.

Hur

Hartman

Choi

H. S.

(2003). An analysis of the impact of anchored instruction on teaching and learning activities in two ninth-grade language arts classes. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 173–184.

122.

* Riffel

L. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Turnbull

A. P.

Lattimore

Davies

Stock

Fisher

(2005). Promoting independent performance of transition-related tasks using a palmtop PC-based self-directed visual and auditory prompting system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 5–14.

123.

Sandoval

Bell

(Eds.). (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context [Special Issue]. Educational Psychologist, 39(4).

124.

Shavelson

R. J.

Towne

(Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

125.

* Sheehy

(2005). Morphing images: A potential tool for teaching word recognition to children with severe learning disabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 293–301.

126.

Silver-Pacuilla

(2006, January. Moving toward solutions: Assistive and learning technology for all students. Washington, DC: National Center for Technology Innovation.

127.

* Slater

J. M.

(2002). A pictorial approach for improving literacy skills in students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 58–62.

128.

* Soto

Hartmann

Wilkins

D. P.

(2006). Exploring the elements of narrative that emerge in the interactions between an 8-year-old child who uses an AAC device and her teacher. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 231–241.

129.

* Soto

Muller

Hunt

Goetz

(2001). Critical issues in the inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication: An educational team perspective. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 62–72.

130.

* Stock

S. E.

Davies

D. K.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2004). Internet-based multimedia tests and surveys for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 43–47.

131.

* Stoner

M. L.

Easterbrooks

S. R.

Laughton

J. M.

(2005). Handwritten and word-processed story retellings by school-aged students who are deaf. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 35–44.

132.

* Strum

J. M.

Rankin-Erickson

J. L.

(2002). Effects of computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 124–139.

133.

* Sutherland

D. E.

Gillon

G. G.

Yoder

D. E.

(2005). AAC use and service provision: A survey of New Zealand speech-language therapists. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 295–307.

134.

* Tam

Reid

Naumann

O'Toole

(2002). Effects of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 147–162.

135.

Thompson

Diamond

K. E.

McWilliam

Snyder

(2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 71, 181–195.

136.

* Twyman

Tindal

(2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 5–16.

137.

* Wilcox

M. J.

Guimond

Campbell

P. H.

Moore

H. W.

(2006). Provider perspectives on the use of assistive technology for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(1) 33–50.

138.

* Williams

S. C.

(2002). How speech-feedback and word prediction software can help students write. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 72–78.

139.

Woodward

Rieth

H. J.

(1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 503–536.

140.

* Xin

J. F.

Rieth

H. J.

(2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87–103.

141.

* Zhang

(2000). Technology and the writing skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 467–478.

142.

* Zorfass

Rivero

H. K.

(2005). Collaboration is key: How a community of practice promotes technology integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 41–67.

143.

*Note: Articles included in the analysis are preceded by an asterisk.