This article highlights the technological solutions available for increasing the accessibility of educational materials for students with disabilities. Special attention is paid to design features for supporting the needs of students with disabilities in computer-based tests; however, many of the same technologies can be applied to instructional environments. Current technologies such as assistive devices are discussed as well as emerging strategies for embedding flexibility into learning and testing interfaces. In addition, advances in the field of ambient intelligence are described as they might apply to educational environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AartsE.KorstJ.VerhaeghW. R. J. (2004). Algorithms in ambient intelligence. In VerhaeghW.AartsE.KorstJ. (Eds.), Algorithms in ambient intelligence (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
2.
AartsE.RooversR. (2003). Embedded system design issues in ambient intelligence. In BastenT.GeilenM.deGrottH. (Eds.), Ambient intelligence: Impact on embedded system design (pp. 11–29). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
3.
AbellM. (2006). Individualizing learning using intelligent technology and universally designed curriculum. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(3). Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://www.jtla.org.
4.
AlcanizM.ReyB. (2005). New technologies for ambient intelligence. In RivaG.VatalaroF.DavideF.AlcanizM. (Eds.), Ambient intelligence: The evolution of technology, communication, and cognition towards the future of human-computer interaction (pp. 3–15). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
5.
AllanJ. M.BullaN.GoodmanS. A. (2003). Test access: Guidelines for computer administered testing. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.
6.
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7.
BainK.BassonS.FaismanA.KanevskyD. (2005). Accessibility, transcription, and access everywhere. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3), 589–603.
8.
BainK.BassonS.FaismanA.KanevskiD. (2005). Accessibility, transcription, and access everywhere. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3), 589–603.
9.
BarakA.EnglishN. (2002). Prospects and limitations of psychological testing on the Internet. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19(2/3), 65–89.
10.
BennettR. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1). Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol1/1/.
11.
BergmanE.JohnsonE. (1995). Towards accessible human-computer interaction. In NielsenJ. (Ed.), Advances in human-computer interaction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
12.
BrewerJ. (2004). How people with disabilities use the Web. World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/OE.
13.
Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation. (n.d.). Kansas computerized assessment. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://kca.cete.us/kca.html.
14.
Center for Universal Design. (1997). What is universal design?Raleigh: North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design.
15.
ComdenD.BurgstahlerS. (2002). World wide access: Accessible Web design. Seattle: University of Washington.
16.
DeBellM.ChapmanC. (2003). Computer and Internet use by children and adolescents in 2001: Statistical analysis report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
17.
DolanR. P.HallT. E.BanerjeeM.ChunE.StrangemanN. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol3/7/.
18.
HoffmanD.GrivelE.BattleL. (2005). Designing software architectures to facilitate accessible Web applications. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3), 467–483.
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
20.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universally designed assessments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(2). Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol4/2.
21.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.AlonzoJ.Braun-MoneganJ.TindalG. (2007). Recommendations for accommodations: Implications of (in)consistency. Remedial and Special Education, 28(4), 194–206.
22.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.YovanoffP.TindalG. (2007). Developing a new paradigm for accommodations research. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 331–347.
23.
MartiP.LundH. H. (2005). Scaling ambient intelligence: Compositional devices. In RemagninoP.ForestiG. L.EllisT. (Eds.), Ambient intelligence: A novel paradigm (pp. 39–61). New York: Springer.
24.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
25.
Oregon Department of Education. (n.d.). Assessment and information services. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from www.ode.state.or.us.
26.
PurhonenA.TuulariE. (2003). Ambient intelligence and the development of embedded system software. In BastenT.GeilenM.deGrottH. (Eds.), Ambient intelligence: Impact on embedded system design (pp. 51–67). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
27.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§794–794a.
28.
RemagninoP.HagrasH.MonekossoN.VelastinS. (2005). Ambient intelligence: A gentle introduction. In RemagninoP.ForestiG. L.EllisT. (Eds.), Ambient intelligence: A novel paradigm (pp. 1–14). New York: Springer.
29.
RivaG. (2005). The psychology of ambient intelligence: Activitiy, situation, and presence. In RivaG.VatalaroF.DavideF.AlcanizM. (Eds.), Ambient intelligence: The evolution of technology, communication, and cognition towards the future of human-computer interaction (pp. 17–33). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
30.
SchneidermanB. (2000). Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 85–91.
31.
Texas Education Agency. (1999). Accessibility of information in electronic textbooks for all students: Report on the computer network study project. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from www.tsbvi.edu/textbooks/tea1999.htm.
32.
ThomasW. R. (2003). Status of online testing in SREB states. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
33.
ThompsonS. J.JohnstoneC. J.ThurlowM. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 7, 2003, from: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.htm.
34.
ThompsonS. J.ThurlowM. L.QuenemoenR. F.LehrC. A. (2002). Access to computer-based testing for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis45.htm.
