16 September/October 2003
Most citations of the definition of assistive
technology can be traced back to the 1988 passage
of Public Law 10-407, The Technology-Related
Assistance Act for Individuals with Disabilities.
Commonly known as the Tech Act, the law defined
two critical aspects of assistive technology:
assistive technology devices and assistive technology
services.
§300.5 Assistive technology device.
As used in this part, Assistive technology
device means any item, piece of equipment, or
product system, whether acquired commercially
off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used
to increase, maintain, or improve the functional
capabilities of a child with a disability. (Authority:
20 U.S.C. 1401(1))
§300.6 Assistive technology service.
As used in this part, Assistive technology
service means any service that directly assists a
child with a disability in the selection, acquisition,
or use of an assistive technology device. The term
includes- (a) The evaluation of the needs of a child
with a disability, including a functional evaluation
of the child in the child's customary environment;
(b) Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for
the acquisition of assistive technology devices by
children with disabilities; (c) Selecting, designing,
fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining,
repairing, or replacing assistive technology
devices; (d) Coordinating and using other theraRethinking
Assistive Technology
by Dave L. Edyburn, Ph.D.
Fifteen years following
the passage of the
Tech Act, is it time to
revisit the concept of
assistive technology
and rethink its core
elements?
pies, interventions, or services with assistive
technology devices, such as those associated with
existing education and rehabilitation plans and
programs; (e) Training or technical assistance for a
child with a disability or, if appropriate, that child's
family; and (f) Training or technical assistance for
professionals (including individuals providing
education or rehabilitation services), employers, or
other individuals who provide services to, employ,
or are otherwise substantially involved in the
major life functions of that child. (Authority: 20
U.S.C. 1401(2))
Definitions Legacy
These definitions subsequently have been cited
or incorporated into all technology and disability
legislation (i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act,
1990; the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act Amendments, 1997; Telecommunications Act
of 1996; The Assistive Technology Act of 1998). The
two definitions provide a comprehensive perspective
on processes that enable individuals with
disabilities to acquire and use assistive technologies
that enhance functional capabilities
(Blackhurst & Edyburn, 2000).
Given the universal acceptance of the legal
definitions of assistive technology devices and
services, some may wonder if it wise to question
their utility. However, 15 years following the
passage of the Tech Act, I wonder if it is time to
revisit the concept of assistive technology and
rethink its core elements. Aware of the risks
associated with challenging the sacred tenets of our
field, in the sections that follow, I share some
observations about 13 issues associated with the
current state of practice relative to assistive technology
use in schools. Subsequently, I outline a
modest agenda for rethinking assistive technology
by describing specific actions that could be implemented
to improve the efficacy and utility of the
assistive technology consideration system.
Copyright 2004 Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Citation: Edyburn, D.L. (2004). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 5(4), 16-23.
Special Education Technology Practice 17
... Assistive technology device means any
item, piece of equipment, or product system,
whether acquired commercially off the
shelf, modified, or customized, that is used
to increase, maintain, or improve the functional
capabilities of a child with a disability.
An AT device
is anything...Synonyms
of any...
Dissecting the Definition of Assistive Technology
Where does AT come
from? You can buy it,
you can buy it and
change it, or you can
make it...
The standards of whether
anything is AT: it must help
a child stay the same
(maintain) get a little better
(improve) or get a lot better
(increase)...
The focus of
our work... If the outcome
of AT use is to
enhance functional
performance
then
where’s the
evidence of
what children
can do as a
result of their
AT use?
State of Practice: Assistive
Technology in Schools
The following personal observations highlight
some issues relative to current state of practice of
assistive technology use in schools.
• Confusion about what assistive technology
looks like.
The current definition of AT is problematic
when the operational word is “any.” AT is anything
(see Figure 1). Put another way, what isn’t
assistive technology? AT is increasingly viewed by
some as blank check legal mandate that requires
schools to purchase devices and services based on
the hope that it will work for a specific child. Since
the regulations do not require the systematic
collection and evaluation of data, no evidence is
required that assistive technology actually improves
a students’ academic performance. The
magnitude of this definitional problem escalates
considerably in the context of the following problem:
Jimmy has trouble remembering things.
Therefore he needs a laptop computer so he can
use Ask Jeeves as assistive technology. (If AT is
18 September/October 2003
anything, how can you deny AskJeeves isn’t AT?)
And, Jimmy needs the school to install a wireless
network so he can access his AT in all classrooms.
• Insufficient number of AT leadership
personnel.
Most states have one, or less, certificate or
graduate programs that offer advanced training
with an emphasis on assistive technology. In
addition, the mandate to consider AT as part of
each IEP, in effect added 3.8 million students with
high incidence disabilities to the AT case load.
Over the past six years there has been no discernible
increase in the number of AT specialists being
prepared or hired in response to the federal
mandate. As a result, there is little evidence that
each school district has adequately trained personnel
in every school building to provide leadership
on the issues associated with assistive technology
use in schools.
• Current assistive technology delivery
systems require teachers to make a
referral for an assistive technology
evaluation before a child can receive
assistance.
Most policies and procedures for assessing the
need for assistive technology devices and services
are based on a deficit model, similar to the referral,
identification, and placement model for special
education. As a result, the assistive technology
referral and evaluation system is subject to the
same inherent limitations of the special education
referral and evaluation system: inefficiency,
significant delay in the provision of intervention
services, high cost, and inadequate emphasis on
follow-up after the initial evaluation.
• IEP teams are mandated to consider
AT.
The mandate to consider the use of assistive
technology has been translated into a task of
procedural compliance. That is, a check box has
been added to the IEP to indicate whether or not
assistive technology has been considered. No
documentation is required to provide evidence of
what was considered or how the decision was
derived. Conversely, checking the “no” box is an
invitation for compliance monitoring since federal
law requires that consideration take place. There
appears to be little relationship between the IEP
task of AT consideration and in-depth AT evalua-
tion.
• Most members of the IEP team have
had little or no training in assistive
technology.
The current teacher certification standard in
many states involves simply a three-credit course
in educational technology. Assistive technology
may or may not be covered in that course. In most
special education certification programs,
coursework in assistive technology is generally an
elective rather than a required course. As a result,
there is little evidence to indicate that professionals
have adequate preparation for the selection and
use of assistive technology through their preservice
preparation. Inservice professional development
programs are often viewed as inadequate for
providing the high-level of knowledge and skills
they feel they need to encourage and support
assistive technology use.
• Teams lack the tools and training to
effectively implement the consideration
mandate.
There is little evidence that preservice teachers
receive adequate training in assistive technology to
prepare them for their responsibilities to consider
assistive technology in each IEP meeting. Similarly,
there is little evidence that inservice professionals
have received adequate training. Hence, the
paradox of consideration: How am I supposed to
consider AT when I don’t know what the options
are? (Edyburn, 2000). Likewise, there are few tools
to support the many decisions associated with
assistive technology consideration.
• Theoretical models describe procedural
processes associated with
assistive technology consideration but
fail to provide information about specific
interventions.
Edyburn (2001a) identified 12 models, theories,
and frameworks which provide the theoretical
foundations of the discipline of special education
technology. Several models have had significant
impact in the development of state and district
Special Education Technology Practice 19
level policies concerning assistive technology
consideration. However, none of the consideration
models offer specific guidance on how to access
appropriate assistive technology devices. As a
result of the emphasis on procedural processes,
there is a significant gulf between procedural
compliance with the mandate for assistive technology
consideration and classroom practices that use
technology effectively to enhance student perfor-
mance.
• Little is known about the number of
students with disabilities that currently
use assistive technology in schools.
While assistive technology consideration has
been mandated since the 1997 reauthorization of
IDEA, state and federal education agencies are not
required to monitor and report on the number of
students that use assistive technology. Theoretically,
this data could be extracted from IEPs.
However, no mechanisms are currently in-place for
systematically collecting and analyzing data
concerning the use of assistive technology in
schools. As a result, we have no way of knowing
whether the federal mandate to consider assistive
technology has resulted in more students with
disabilities having access to assistive technology or
not.
• There is no evidence to suggest that
all students who need AT have access
to the devices and services they need.
Similar to the issue above, inadequate attention
to monitoring the mandate to consider assistive
technology for each student with a disability
means that we currently do not know the number
of unserved or underserved students. That is, what
percentage of students could benefit from assistive
technology but do not have access to appropriate
devices and services?
• Performance problems are not limited
to individuals with disabilities.
By definition, assistive technologies are tools
for individuals with disabilities. However, in every
classroom, there are a considerable number of
students who’s performance fails to meet the
expected standards. As a result, why are students
without disabilities denied the opportunity to use
appropriate technologies that could enhance their
performance? Isn’t everyone entitled to the tools
they need to be successful?
• AT and IT systems exist in parallel in
most schools.
Most schools have two parallel systems in
place for supporting technology. Assistive technology
devices are managed by assistive technology
specialists for students with disabilities. The AT
staff are challenged to work within the larger
context of a school district where network coordinators
and technology specialists manage the
instructional technology (IT) infrastructure for
students without disabilities. There are considerable
differentials between these two systems in
terms of power, authority, and control (i.e., you
can’t put that adaptive software on the network
because it will make the network crash...). It is
relatively rare to find a school where IT and AT
have been integrally linked in ways that support
the success of all students.
• The changing nature of assistive
technology.
What does assistive technology look like?
Historically, assistive technology has taken various
forms and is most widely associated with applications
that help individuals who are blind, visually
impaired, deaf, hard of hearing, or physically
impaired. Applications of technology which serve
as cognitive prostheses are considerable less
accepted and understood. For example, for a
student with short and long term memory problems
documented on his IEP, can the search engine
Ask Jeeves (http://www.askjeeves.com) serve as a
cognitive prosthesis to help him complete test
items he doesn’t know or remember? Or, could the
Job Coach (http://www.attainmentcompany.com)
be programmed to remind him of the sequence of
steps for completing a task? Is the software product
Inspiration (http://www.inspiration.com), AT or
IT? Are text-to-speech products only for students
with disabilities or could all students benefit from
having the computer read selected words or whole
passages? Over the past 15 years, the marketplace
has made outstanding advances that challenge us
to rethink the form, function, and purpose of
assistive technology.
20 September/October 2003
• Unknown outcomes of AT.
To-date, little evidence documents the outcomes
of assistive technology. For example, when
an individual with a disability uses their assistive
technology, is their performance on selected tasks
comparable to their nonhandicapped peers or is
there still a performance gap? Are there changes
that result in gains in quality of life, goal attainment,
or job satisfaction? Current federal mandates
concerning assistive technology are uncharacteristically
silent about the need to collect and report on
the outcomes of assistive technology. Stated
another way, what proof do we have to document
a claim that a specific assistive technology device is
effective? One considerable problem in K-12
education is the mandate of participation in high
stakes assessment and the narrow range of acceptable
accommodations involving assistive technology.
As a result, how do we know a child’s score
on a state exam is a reliable and valid measure of
what he knows and can do when he is not permitted
to use assistive technology?
A Modest Agenda for
Rethinking Assistive
Technology
When I testified about assistive technology
issues concerning the current reauthorization of
IDEA (Edyburn, 2001b), I was optimistic that
assistive technology would be among the top
issues addressed in the legislative process. Obviously,
this has not been the case. While it is clear
that the potential of assistive technology has been
recognized, we are far from achieving the potential
that was envisioned by its proponents.
In order to stimulate discussion about future
scenarios where the potential of assistive technology
is realized on ever larger scales, the following
recommendations are advanced as a modest
agenda for rethinking assistive technology. It is my
intent to engage stakeholders in a conversation that
allows us to think deeply, share passionately, and
act thoughtfully to ensure that students experience
the routine and empowering impact of technology
enhanced performance.
Recommendation #1: Develop a
unifying theory that clarifies the relationships
among assistive technology,
instructional technology, and universal
design.
Rather than emphasizing the differences
between assistive and instructional or educational
technology, clarify the theoretical constructs
associated with using technology to enhance
teaching, learning, and performance. Why is the
software product Inspiration assistive technology
for a student with a disability but instructional
technology for everyone else? And, how does the
design of learning environments and instructional
materials that utilize principles of universal design,
impact the need for assistive technology? Theoretical
models which unify these disparate constructs
will reduce the artificial boundaries that have
developed among these related disciplines and
contribute to advances in research, practice, and
development.
Recommendation #2: Consider using
the concept of “technology enhanced
performance” as a replacement
for the term “assistive technol-
ogy.”
Current assistive technology service delivery
systems have over-emphasized tasks associated
with selection of AT and devoted little effort to
enhanced functional outcome. Morphing the
concept of AT into a new updated form allows a
subtle shift in emphasis. That is, it matters little
what form the technology comes in (i.e., low-tech,
high-tech), rather what matters is that appropriate
tools have been acquired and used to enhance
functional performance. Refocusing our attention
away from the stuff of assistive technology to the
results, will signal a developmental maturation of
the profession. Further, the concept of technology
enhanced performance eliminates the artificial
boundaries between technology use by individuals
with disabilities and their nonhandicapped peers.
Recommendation #3: Provide increased
state and federal leadership
and resources for personnel preparation
in technology enhanced teaching,
learning, and performance.
Special Education Technology Practice 21
Limited evidence suggests that teachers and
administrators are being adequately prepared to
assume their decision-making roles relative to
using technology to enhance educational achievement.
There is a severe shortage of personnel
preparation programs to provide advanced training
in assistive technology. State and federal
leadership and resources are sorely needed for
preservice and inservice personnel preparation.
Recommendation #4: Implement a
screening system, comparable to the
Special Education Child Find mandate,
that identifies students with performance
problems who may be as yet
unidentified but in need of technology
to enhance their academic perfor-
mance.
The National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) indicates that only one-third of
American students are performing at the proficient
level in reading and math at the fourth grade level
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003).
This means there is a significant population of
students with and without disabilities who could
perhaps benefit from interventions that use technology
to enhance performance. Without a screening
system that systematically identifies struggling
students and engages them in diagnostic assessment
to determine if appropriate technology tools
can enhance their performance, we run the risk of
perpetuating discriminatory AT assessment
practices that provide AT only to those students
with advocates that challenge the system.
Recommendation #5: When planning
the instructional program for individual
students, explicitly discuss the percentage
of intervention effort that should
be devoted to remediation and com-
pensation.
When a student has struggled to achieve a
given performance objective, how do we decide if
the best course of action is remediation (i.e.,
additional instructional time, different instructional
approaches) versus compensation (i.e.,
recognizing that remediation has failed and that
compensatory approaches are needed to produce
the desired level of performance)?
Historically, educators have focused their
energy and efforts exclusively on instruction and
remediation. However, if remedial approaches
always worked, we would never see high school
students that couldn’t read independently beyond
the second grade level. What happens when a
student fails to learn to read? Typically, educators
search for different instructional methods or
materials. Seldom do they raise the question: Are
there other ways of performing the task?
Routine failure to attain appropriate levels of
academic performance should trigger assistive
technology consideration. That is, compensatory
strategies that use technology to enhance performance.
Few guidelines are available to inform
decision-making about assistive technology for
learning. If a child has repeatedly fails to read and
understand printed text, how much failure data do
we need before we have enough evidence that the
child can’t perform the task? When do we intervene?
And, what do we do? The key question in
the No Child Left Behind era is: What do we do
about below grade level academic performance?
Whereas the current assistive technology
consideration process provides a mechanism for
addressing the critical decisions associated with
whether to pursue remediation or compensation
strategies, the question should be explicitly addressed
rather than assumed that the question is
intrinsic to the process. Further, it may not be an
either/or decision. Rather, it may be necessary to
ask, what percentage of time and effort will be
devoted to remediation and what percentage of
time and effort will be devoted to compensatory
approaches? Thinking of these comparable strategies
as components that equal 100% provides a
viable solution. Use of compensatory tools will
allow students to experience success and achieve
the functional outcome expected in their academic
classes.
Recommendation #6: Foster development
of technology consideration
menus that can be used by teachers,
administrators, and parents to explore
the variety of technology supports
available for enhancing performance
of specific tasks.
The intent of the AT consideration mandate
will not be met until there are new tools that allow
22 September/October 2003
non-assistive technology specialists to understand
the array of possibilities for addressing deficits in
academic performance. Presently, AT specialists
serve a gate-keeping function. That is, we restrict
access about AT products until a person has passed
through our assessment system. Teachers, administrators,
and parents are in desperate need of easyto-use
decision-making tools that help them
identify categories of products that may be useful
for individual or groups of struggling students. As
a result, the assistive technology community needs
to capture its individual and collective wisdom and
package our mental diagnostic models in a form
that allows others to navigate our knowledge base
and locate appropriate types of technology sup-
ports.
Recommendation #7: Establish local,
state, and national data collection
systems that document the use of
technology supports by students with
disabilities.
If local, state, and federal educational policy is
to be informed by data, considerable commitment
will be required to establish data collection protocols
in order to collect valid and reliable data
concerning the use of technology by students with
disabilities. Much remains to be learned about the
number of students with disabilities who use
assistive technology, whether or not certain
disability groups are underserved, and whether or
not progress is being made in achievement the
intent of the federal mandate to consider assistive
technology.
Closing Thoughts
Given that the current definition of assistive
technology devices and services are referenced in
five federal laws, change will not be easy or quick.
Nonetheless, if the discipline of special education
technology is to advance, periodic review and
modification of its core tenets is essential. In this
article I have described 13 issues associated with
current practice relative to assistive technology in
schools that impact the unrealized potential of
assistive technology. This perspective has afforded
me the opportunity to reflect on what could be
done to create future scenarios in which all students
have access to appropriate technology tools
for enhancing academic performance. I am hopeful
the modest agenda for rethinking assistive
technology I have advanced will be provocative in
ways that stimulate debate, dialogue, and action.
References
Blackhurst, A.E., & Edyburn, D.L. (2000). A brief
history of special education technology. Special
Education Technology Practice, 2(1), 21-35.
Edyburn, D.L. (2001a). Models, theories, and frameworks:
Contributing to understanding special
education technology. Special Education Technology
Practice, 4(2), 16-24.
Edyburn, D.L. (2001b). IDEA Reauthorization testimony.
October 23. Minneapolis. MN.
Edyburn, D.L. (2000). Assistive technology and mild
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1-
24.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003).
National Assessment of Educational Progress: The
Nation’s Report Card.Retrieved on November 15,
2003: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
About the Author
Dave L. Edyburn, Ph.D. is an associate professor,
Department of Exceptional Education, University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; email:
edyburn@uwm.edu.