Models of Assessment for Assistive Technology

Tonight's class was dedicated to the assessment tools or models for assistive technology.  I was very glad to see that my research ended up being on the right track with others from the class.  The models I looked at were the SETT, HAAT, WATI and MPT.  At first when I was looking for information, I found the websites I located did not give much of the type of information I was looking for.  I needed to piece together what each model was and what it offered.  When comparing them however, I did begin to see what the four things were that they had in common and was glad to hear our class conversation came to the same conclusions.  The "Common Threads" I found in each of these models were: 

—Use checklists/guides for identifying areas of weakness - usually a team approach

—Each model considers what task the child needs assistance with

—Considers environment in which AT is to be used

—Look at what and how the AT would help child accomplish the task

Throughout the presentations it seemed to be reinforced that no matter what AT was needed and used, it was important to re-evaluate it on a regular basis and make necessary changes accordingly.  As people grow, develop, strengthen abilities and learn, the AT they require may change.  Also, no matter what model was being used, the common threads above needed to be considered so that the tool best suited to the user would be implemented. 

The Morrison article also stresses the importance of matching AT to the student.  She mentions many  elements of learning that need to be considered when assigning AT to a student. She addresses the fact that even though AT can make a world of difference in a child's learning abilities in the classroom, there are a number of factors that could cause it's implementation to fail such as those Beigel, 2000 and Edyburn, 2000 state:  "Lack of teacher time, limited training, access to support service, limited leadership and lack of common vision or rationale for ACT," (Morrison, 2007, p. 83).  

Schere looks more at the AT user's specific reasons for using or not using AT.  In my research I came across the Scherer table before it was mentioned in class tonight. I found it very straightforward and a quick way to assess what is right or wrong with the AT that has been implemented.  For myself, I went right away to the Non Use sections of avoidance and abandonment because I've just gone through it with a student of mine. To make a long story short, he did not want to use some of the AT that was being put in place.  I could check off a number of boxes from both these sections and I knew the reason right away.  He had been recently diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome, yet his guardians and parents did not want to tell him.  All of a sudden they wanted all these recommendations put in place for him, but would not tell him why.  With only the knowledge that he was suddenly being treated differently than all of his classmates, he became embarrassed, acted out, unhappy - often crying when told to use the new devices, and I could go on and on.  He didn't know the whole story and I couldn't tell him.  After a month of this, I spoke to the family and shared my concern and reasoning for sharing with him the news and after mulling it over they agreed to tell him.  I also had a discussion with the class that he was aware of, and minutes after returning to the class his whole outlook changed!  Because we could be open with him about why these devices would help and he knew his classmates were not going to make fun of him and he was getting the support from all places, he became much more willing to try new AT - and it is helping!