Topic 1: Educational vs. Assistive technology.

We each looked up one of the definitions of Educational Technology and Assistive Technology, compared the words and intent and tried to apply them to the scenarios presented. The Educational Technology Plan for Virginia 2003-2009 uses the following definition of Educational Technology: Educational Technology encompasses knowledge about and use of computers and related technologies in (a) delivery, development, prescription, and assessment of instruction; (b) effective uses of computers as an aid to problem solving; (c) school and classroom administration; (d) educational research; (e) electronic information access and exchange; (f) personal and professional productivity; and (g) computer science education. (p. 100). According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)'s 1997 definition of Assistive Technology, an AT device is defined as: any item, piece of equipment, or pr oduct 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. We concluded that the difference between these two definitions is a more a matter of intent than any specific difference in the words. An Educational Technology is applicable across the full spectrum of the classroom, while an Assistive Technology is intended for one diverse learner, as part of an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Further research discovered the website for the South Carolina Assistive Technology Program (http://www.sc.edu/scatp/cdrom/atused.html) and an article entitled SC Curriculum Access through AT, which opined that assistive technology is more personal to the student, whereas educational technology is more classroom-based. In the scenario presented, we conclude that a diverse learner using Microsoft Word was using an Assistive Technology as the program was specifically intended to address an aspect of his diversity. The other students in the class using the exact same program were using it as an Educational Technology, unless of course they were using to access the material as part of their own IEP.

Topic 2. Who is responsible for Assistive Technology in the IEP process? To determine the members of the IEP, we went to the Department of Education website ed.gov and an article entitled A Guide to the Individualized Education Program. Section 7 of this article discusses the role of each of the IEP team members: The Parents, The Special Education Teacher, the Regular Education Teacher and School System Representative. Also, an individual to interpret the evaluation and in some cases the student. We considered each of these roles in the context of the IEP development process and decided the responsibility for appropriate assistive technology resources for students during the IEP process rested with two members: The Special Education Teacher and the School system representative. The Special Education teacher is uniquely positioned to evaluate the needs of the diverse learner, with input from the other members, to determine what assistive technologies would have the most positive impact. School System Representative is able to address both availability and feasibility of the technologies proposed. In the event the assistive technologies are not available, or may be cost prohibitive, the School System Representative can present past practice and perhaps other options for the teams consideration. The rest of the IEP development team have equal voice in determining how these technologies could be best used to the advantage of the diverse learner, but the Special Education Teacher and the School System Representative provide the kernel of assistive technology on which to make a decision. In the same article, each of the roles was discussed in some detail. In addition to the positions above, the IEP may include others with knowledge of special expertise about the child. Our conclusion after reviewing all of these positions and the IEP development process as a whole, was that the IEP is all about the child. It should account for all the limitations and skills present and result in a plan that provides the diverse learner with access to the same education as her non-diverse counterparts. As the diverse learners representative and strongest advocate, the parents are ultimately responsible for the decisions made by the IEP. It is the parents who know their

child best and who have the right to petition higher authority should they best efforts of the IEP fall short of the perceived needs of their child.

Topic 3: Shortfalls in the SETT framework After reviewing several websites regarding the SETT framework, we concluded that the only real; shortfall in the SETT framework is probably not a shortfall at all: Its simplicity. The framework is almost too simply stated. Each of the four elements (Students, Environment, Tasks and Tools) creates a comprehensive umbrella under which the appropriate assistive technologies can be ascertained. Through various web searches we discovered an abundance of information about the SETT framework mostly written by the author of the Module 9 readings, Joy Zambala, but very little information regarding applications based on the framework. We therefore concluded that the SETT framework was perfectly suited for its intended purpose.