Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

tucek, J. (2002). Brief reports: Increasing communication skills for an elementary-aged student with Autism using <strong>the</strong> Picture Exchange Communication System. <strong>Journal</strong> of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 225–230. Liddle, K. (2001). Implementing <strong>the</strong> Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS). International <strong>Journal</strong> of Language and Communication Disorders, 36, 391–395. Magiati, I., & Howlin, P. (2003). A pilot evaluation study of <strong>the</strong> Picture Exchange Communication System for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Autism: The International <strong>Journal</strong> of Research and Practice, 7, 297–320. Mirenda, P. (2001). Autism, augmentative communication, and assistive technology: What do we really know? Focus on Autism and O<strong>the</strong>r Developmental Disabilities, 16, 141–145. Mirenda, P., & Erickson, K. A. (2000). Augmentative communication and literacy. In A. M. Weth- 76 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008 erby & B. M. Priznang (Eds.), Autism Spectrum Disorder: A transactional approach (pp. 333–369). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. National Research Council. (2001). Educating Children with Autism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Schwartz, I. S., Garfinkle, A. N., & Bauer, J. (1998). The Picture Exchange Communication System: Communicative outcomes for young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 144–159. Tincani, M. (2004). Comparing <strong>the</strong> Picture Exchange Communication System and sign language training for children with Autism. Focus on Autism and O<strong>the</strong>r Developmental Disabilities, 19, 152– 164. Received: 3 May 2006 Initial Acceptance: 28 June 2006 Final Acceptance: 19 December 2006
Preschool Teacher Perceptions of Assistive Technology and Professional Development Responses Julia B. Stoner, Howard P. Parette, Emily H. Watts, and Brian W. Wojcik Illinois State University Tina Fogal Bloomington District 87 Schools Abstract: This study investigated <strong>the</strong> perspectives of teachers in an early childhood center concerning <strong>the</strong>ir thoughts and feelings about <strong>the</strong> implementation of a school wide assistive technology (AT) program designed to enhance emergent literacy skills for children identified as being at-risk or having special needs. Qualitative methodology was used to gain perspectives of all participants. Semi-structured interviews, observations in <strong>the</strong> classroom, and a self-assessment of AT knowledge and practice were used to collect data. Data were analyzed using a multiple coding approach resulting in identification of four major <strong>the</strong>mes: (a) perceptions of technology, (b) perceived challenges to implementing technology, (c) perceptions of AT and literacy and (d) self-reported AT use. Discussion and recommendations focus on best practices of implementing school wide AT in early childhood settings. Young children with disabilities have increasingly been placed in child care and preschool settings since <strong>the</strong> passage of <strong>the</strong> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA 97; National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, 2003). To serve <strong>the</strong>se children appropriately in such settings, an individual education program (IEP) is developed for each child in which assistive technology (AT) devices [20 U. S. C. § 1401(1)] and services must be considered [20 U.S.C. 1401(2)]. Both devices and services can result in a range of developmental benefits for young children with disabilities (Drasgow, Yell, & Robinson, 2001; Mistreet, Lane, & Ruffino, 2005; National Association for <strong>the</strong> Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 1996; Reed & Bowser, 2005; Wiekle & Hadadian, 2003). However, <strong>the</strong> potential of AT to benefit <strong>the</strong>se children is contingent on “thoughtful integration into This project was supported by a grant from <strong>the</strong> Illinois Children’s Healthcare Foundation to <strong>the</strong> first three authors. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Howard P. Parette, Department of Special Education, Illinois State University, Box 5910, Normal, IL 61790-5910. Email: hpparet@ilstu.edu Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2008, 43(1), 77–91 © <strong>Division</strong> on Developmental Disabilities <strong>the</strong> early childhood curriculum” (NAEYC, p. 3). While IDEA 97 provides a clear requirement for ‘thoughtful’ consideration of AT in developing young children’s service plans, <strong>the</strong> No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) also provides additional demands for teachers by (a) requiring that children with disabilities be taught to <strong>the</strong> same standards as all children, and (b) holding schools accountable for student achievement. However, “taking full advantage of <strong>the</strong>ir rights to a high quality education requires support to learn in ways that meet <strong>the</strong>ir educational needs” (National Center for Technology Innovation, 2005, p. 3). AT affords many young children with disabilities with <strong>the</strong> necessary learning supports to learn and achieve, especially with regard to developing emergent literacy skills that provide <strong>the</strong> foundation for later success when entering public schools (Parette, Stoner, Watts, & Wojcik, 2006). Use of technology to develop emergent literacy skills has been examined by numerous authorities (Beck, 2002; Pierce & Porter, 1996; Smedley et al., 1997; Scooter & Boss, 2002; Wright & Shade, 1994). In typical classrooms, early childhood teachers plan and implement an array of emergent literacy activities for chil- Preschool Teacher Perceptions / 77
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Guardianship: Its Role in t
Page 9 and 10:
guardians who are knowledgeable abo
Page 11 and 12:
in budgeting and spending; (b) a sp
Page 13 and 14:
and effective are essential to self
Page 15 and 16:
involved in the gu
Page 17 and 18:
sonal rights removed through guardi
Page 19 and 20:
who are not trustworthy, and when o
Page 21 and 22:
Discussion and Recommendations Lake
Page 23 and 24:
DC: OSERS. (ERIC Document Reproduct
Page 25 and 26:
people who do not have disabilities
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 1 School Demographics Demogra
Page 29 and 30: TABLE 2 Methods for Including Stude
Page 31 and 32: participate in service learning pro
Page 33 and 34: who are “more experienced” in s
Page 35 and 36: cern that they wer
Page 37 and 38: service learning activity for stude
Page 39 and 40: supports school personnel need to h
Page 41 and 42: Using Pivotal Response Training wit
Page 43 and 44: the trained peers
Page 45 and 46: Group B between one and two times p
Page 47 and 48: ing play sessions with Group B, Col
Page 49 and 50: learned to interact with ot
Page 51 and 52: Affirmative sentences emphasize a v
Page 53 and 54: identifying several important behav
Page 55 and 56: Kenji. For Kenji, all observation s
Page 57 and 58: Figure 2. Percentage of 10-s interv
Page 59 and 60: gaging in complicated verbal commun
Page 61 and 62: Results The results of the<
Page 63 and 64: when the person wa
Page 65 and 66: Effectiveness of the</stron
Page 67 and 68: is still encountering only one symb
Page 69 and 70: TABLE 1 Characteristic of Participa
Page 71 and 72: TABLE 2 Characteristics of
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 3 Major Findings Study Commun
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 77 and 78: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 79: nosed as having ASD. Therefore, PEC
Page 83 and 84: TABLE 1 Teacher Demographics 1 Teac
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 3 Assistive Technology Self-A
Page 87 and 88: Integration or supplemental perspec
Page 89 and 90: I don’t know if the</stro
Page 91 and 92: sessions, and the
Page 93 and 94: that would be difficult to develop
Page 95 and 96: Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 1 Characteristics of Campers
Page 99 and 100: appropriate answers were provided.
Page 101 and 102: Figure 2. Effects of STAR intervent
Page 103 and 104: garding how to effectively interact
Page 105 and 106: Shafer K. (1992). Peer-mediating in
Page 107 and 108: proach, features are built into <st
Page 109 and 110: independent transitions were totale
Page 111 and 112: Figure 1. Number of independent tas
Page 113 and 114: type of skills (e.g., domestic, lei
Page 115 and 116: Peer-Implemented Time Delay Procedu
Page 117 and 118: show that peer tutors can reliably
Page 119 and 120: General Procedures The dependent va
Page 121 and 122: Skill training. The teacher and one
Page 123 and 124: Figure 2. Percent of correct respon
Page 125 and 126: heterogeneous group of students is
Page 127 and 128: States’ Eligibility Guidelines fo
Page 129 and 130: Method Procedure The first author d
Page 131 and 132:
TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part score
Page 133 and 134:
eligibility to exhibit an IQ two or
Page 135:
ility guidelines for MR from state
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?