All students receiving special education services are entitled to the consideration of assistive technology (AT) devices and services; however, little research is available on who uses AT in schools. This study analyzed data from the National Assistive Technology Research Institute's (NATRI) Status of AT Use Survey to provide descriptive information related to students using AT. NATRI employed multi-stage, nonprobability purposive and convenience sampling, collecting usable data for 682 student AT users. The sample spanned all grades, preK-12, with the largest percentage of students receiving services in a self-contained setting (40.47%). The most common disability was multiple disabilities (27.71%). The results indicate a need for additional research to ensure that students who need AT receive access to it in a variety of educational environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbnerG. H.LahmE. A. (2002). Implementation of AT with students who are visually impaired: Teachers' readiness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 98–105.
BehrmannM. (1993, January. Assistive technology for Virginia schools (Final report). [Electronic version]. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Special Education Advisory Committee.
4.
BlackhurstA. E.BerdineW. H. (Eds.) (1993). An introduction to special education. New York: HarperCollins.
5.
BlackhurstA. E.LahmE. A. (2000). Technology and exceptionality foundations. In LindseyJ. D. (Ed.), Technology and exceptional individuals (3rd ed., pp. 3–45). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
6.
BottosM.BolcatiC.SciutoL.RuggeriC.FeliciangeliA. (2001). Powered wheelchairs and independence in young children with tetraplegia. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 43, 769–777.
7.
CornA. L.WallR. S. (2002). Access to multimedia presentations for students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 197–211.
8.
DererK.PolsgroveL.RiethH. (1996). A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), 62–80.
9.
EdwardsB. J.LewisS. (1998). The use of technology in programs for students with visual impairments in Florida. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 302–312.
10.
EdyburnD. L. (2003). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 5(4), 16–22.
11.
EdyburnD. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–24.
12.
FinkA. (2003). How to design survey studies (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
GoldenD. (1999). Assistive technology policy and practice: What is the right thing to do? What is the reasonable thing to do? What is required and must be done?Special Education Technology Practice, 1(1), 12, 14.
15.
HowardS. (1992). A descriptive study of the use of and need for assistive technology devices and services in Kansas special education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
KappermanG.StickenJ.HeinzeT. (2002). Survey of the use of assistive technology by Illinois students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 106–108.
20.
LesarS. (1998). Use of AT with young children with disabilities: Current status and training needs. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 146–159.
21.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2005). Mathematics and technology-based interventions. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology, research, and practice (pp. 599–622). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
22.
McGregorG.PachuskiP. (1996). Assistive technology in schools: Are teachers ready, able, and supported?Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(1), 4–15.
23.
MelicharJ. F. (1978). ISAARE: A description. AAESPH Review, 3, 259–268.
24.
MelicharJ. F.BlackhurstA. E. (1993). Introduction to a functional approach to assistive technology. Training Module. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling.
25.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). NCES statistical standards (NCES 2003–601). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved April 4, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003601.pdf.
26.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C.S. § 6301 et seq. (2001); 34 C.F.R. § 200.1 et seq. (2003).
27.
SableJ.HoffmanL. (2005). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 2002–03 (NCES 2005–312). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
28.
SalendS. J.DuhaneyL. M. G. (2005). Understanding and addressing the disproportionate representation of students of color in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 213–221.
29.
SitkoM. C.LaineC. J.SitkoC. (2005). Writing tools: Technology and strategies for struggling writers. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology, research, and practice (pp. 571–598). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
30.
SkellengerA. C. (1999). Trends in the use of alternative mobility devices. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 93, 516–521.
31.
SmithA. J.GeruschatD.HuebnerK. M. (2004). Policy to practice: Teachers' and administrators' views on curricular access by students with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98, 612–628.
32.
StrangmanN.DaltonB. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers: A review of the research. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology, research, and practice (pp. 545–569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
U. S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, U. S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Census bureau regions and divisions with state FIPS codes. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf.
35.
U. S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, U. S. Census Bureau. (2004). Table 1a U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 2000 to 2005. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/.
36.
U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005a). The condition of education 2005 (NCES 2005–094). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
37.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2005b). Twenty-fifth (2003) annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html.
38.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2006). Twenty-sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004, Vol. 1. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2004/26th-vol-1.pdf.
39.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2007). Twenty-seventh annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2005, Vol. 1. Retrieved February 4, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2005/parts-bc/27th-vol-1.pdf.
40.
WahlL. (2004). Surveying special education staff on AT awareness, use, and training. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 57–59.
41.
WehmeyerM. L. (1998). National survey of the use of assistive technology by adults with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 36, 44–51.
42.
WehmeyerM. L. (1999). Assistive technology and students with mental retardation: Utilization and barriers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(1), 48–58.
43.
WehmeyerM. L.SmithS. J.PalmerS. B.DaviesD. K. (2004). Technology use by students with intellectual disabilities: An overview. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 7–22.
44.
WeisbergH. F.KrosnickJ. A.BowenB. D. (1996). An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
