While examining the various forms and structures of assistive technology assessment we have to remember a very simple concept, that there is no one all encompassing assessment technique for anything. Research in all forms of education has shown that we must diversity our assessment techniques to meet the needs of all of our students, there is no one size fits all for anything in education. Despite the fact that all of the various forms of assessment that I examined share many similarities I don't think that a school could simply say, for example, that we follow the SETT framework and that's it. That flies in the face of everything that we have discussed and learned about designing a plan that is in the best interest of our students and their potential for learning. I think the best alternative is to maintain these techniques as frameworks, structures that allow for modification and incorporation of other strategies rather than simply adopting one as the only technique used.
In comparing the various models, its obvious that they have been built off of each other as each seems to share a number of strengths as similarities. All of the models focus on the development of plans built by a team rather than an individual and the consultations and discussions within the team. Another strength is that these teams are made up of a wide range of individuals including teachers, parents, administrators, and the students themselves. This inclusion of all stakeholders means that any plan that is developed is a shared responsibility among the team, creating ownership and accountability. Part of these plans that is also shared and essential is that the technology is appropriate for the activity that the student is participating in. An advantage that we are seeing today is that with the widespread use of handheld technology one tablet is capable of doing what in the not too distant past a wide array of various technologies would have necessitated.
The large number and variety of these structures and frameworks shows two things. One is that they are necessary and are being used in the day to day lives of our students. They have proven to be effective and beneficial to the students who are using assistive technology and in the creation of the individualized education plans of these students. The other is that we do not have one plan or technology that works for all of our students. We must continue to work towards developing and incorporating the various technologies that are becoming available for our students that will help them to succeed in our classrooms and beyond.
Thanks Jeremy. Your reflection is obviously well thought out. The key to each model is that the student/primary user is at the center of each model, noting strengths and challenges. We must start there when making the appropriate match of assistive technology. We also will look at the Task we are asking the student to perform (mention in some not all models (i.e. SETT and HAAT mentions task but MPT doesn't). The task is critical to effective use of AT and will often be a decision maker for the best match (critical actually). The frameworks are extremely important in schools when identifying the BEST assistive technology to enhance performance of students. We cannot make these decisions in isolation so as you say, the team is important.
ReplyDelete