With emphasis placed on the least restrictive learning environments under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with disabilities are often placed in general education classrooms. As a result, the discussion of inclusion strategies has increased in special education. The rise in 1:1 device initiatives offers the inclusionary practice of giving all students within a school access to their own device, with Google’s Chromebook and Apple’s iPad being among the most common device choices. This article explains the potential uses of 1:1 devices for students in inclusion settings, including built-in accessibility features and implementation strategies for educators.
BouckE.FlanaganS.MillerB.BassettL. (2012). Rethinking everyday technology as assistive technology to meet students’ IEP goals. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(4), 47–58.
CornJ.TagsoldJ. T.ArguetaR. (2012). Students with special needs and 1:1 computing: A teacher’s perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(4), 217–223.
4.
CourduffJ. J.SzapkiwA.WendtJ. L. (2016). Grounded in what works: Exemplary practice in special education teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(1), 26–38.
5.
CullenJ.RichardsS. B.Lawless-FrankC. (2008). Using software to enhance writing skills of students with special needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340802300203
6.
DawsonK.AntonenkoP.LaneH.ZhuJ. (2018). Assistive technologies to support students with dyslexia. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 226–239.
7.
HarrisW. J.SmithL. (2004). Laptop use by seventh grade students with disabilities: Perceptions of special education teachers. Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Maine Office.
8.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
9.
KochK. (2017). Stay in the box! Embedded assistive technology improves access for students with disabilities. Education Sciences, 7(4), 1–8.
10.
McCollumD.NationS.GunnS. (2014). The effects of a speech-to-text software application on written expression for students with various disabilities. National Forum of Special Education Journal, 25(1), 1–13.
PenuelW. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
PierL. E.StephanidisC.VanderheidenG. (2011). Technology and inclusion: Past, present, and foreseeable future. Technology and Disability, 23(3), 101–114.
15.
PuckettK. (2005). An assistive technology toolkit: Type II applications for students with mild disabilities. Computers in the Schools, 22(3-4), 107–117.
16.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Digest of education statistics, 2017 (NCES 2018-070).
17.
WaldM. (2008). Learning through multimedia: Automatic speech recognition enhancing accessibility and interaction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 215–223.
18.
WaldM.BainK. (2008). Universal access to communication and learning: The role of automatic speech recognition. International Journal Universal Access in the Information Society, 6(4), 435–447.
19.
ZabalaJ. (1995). The SETT framework: Critical areas to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED381962). Region IV Education Service Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED381962
20.
ZabalaJ.BowserG.KorstenJ. (2005). SETT and ReSETT: Concepts for AT implementation. Closing the Gap, 23(5), 1–4.
