Running head: ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 1

Stacie Brady
1

Assistive Technology and Special Education Teacher Preparation

EDSE 845

Spring 2019
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 2

Abstract

This article analyzed the current approaches being used to integrate assistive technology into the

preservice special education curriculum. Two studies were completed. Study one involved a

literature review that focused on institutes of higher education and preservice teacher programs

from 2009 to 2019. Four articles were identified that described university approaches to

teaching assistive technology to teacher candidates. Due to the paucity of research, a second

study was completed that focused on how the top five special education programs integrate

assistive technology into their curriculums. Results indicated that there is a range of types of

programs that universities use to integrate assistive technology.

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 3

Integration of Assistive Technology

In all areas of life, technology is rapidly advancing. In order to educate today’s students,

who are tomorrow’s workforce, there is a need to integrate technology into today’s classroom.

Teachers are challenged to meet the demands of the 21st century technology-rich environment.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how institutes of higher education (IHE) prepare

preservice special education teachers to support the use of assistive technology (AT) by students

with disabilities.

Technology in Education

Successful integration of technology into classrooms has many advantages for students,

educators, and families. An advantage for students is the improvement of academic performance

by increasing motivation, attitude, engagement, and self-confidence, while improving

organization and study skills (Carver, 2016). The use of educational technology strengthens

relationships by expanding communication pathways. Establishing better ways of

communicating improves relationships between students and teachers, as well as, teachers and

parents (Carver, 2016).

The positive impact of technology within the classroom does not happen automatically

with the acquisition of technology (Harvey & Caro, 2017). The impact of technology is

determined by how teachers use the technology within the education system (Carver, 2016).

Students come to the classroom ready to use technology to explore their world; therefore,

teachers are challenged to use technology and become familiar with new technologies as they

evolve (Kul, Aksu, & Birisci, 2019).

“For most of us, technology makes things easier. For a person with a disability, it makes
2

things possible” (Edyburn, Higgins, & Boone, 2005, p. xiii). Liu, Wu, and Chen (2013) stated
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 4

that a wide range of educational technologies can benefit students with disabilities. Students

with disabilities often need to use technology in order to receive a free and appropriate public

education (Bausch & Ault, 2012). Integration of educational technology improves student

outcomes by promoting independence and autonomy for special education students (Satsangi,

Miller, & Savage, 2019). Integration of technology into education is crucial for students with
3

disabilities.

Educational Technology and Integration Framework

Technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend

curriculum objectives and to engage students in learning (Jost & Mosley,2011). In order to

integrate technology, educators can use research-based instructional frameworks to integrate

different types of technology to support students with disabilities in the classroom. Special

education technology is comprised of instructional technology (IT) and assistive technology

(AT). The application of each of these types of educational technology provides support for

students with different learning abilities (Edyburn, 2013).

Instructional Technology

Instructional technology (IT) is the application of technology to teaching and learning.

IT is defined as “a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of

learning and communication, and employing a combination of human and non-human resources

to bring about more effective instruction” (Rock et al., 2017, p.306). For example, the

educational programs Lexia, by the Rosetta Stone Company, and Read180, by Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt, are web-based programs that incorporate assessment and individualized reading
4

instruction. Successful integration of these programs into reading instruction can support

students with individual learning needs.

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 5

Assistive technology

AT is defined as

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 children with exceptionalities. The term does not include a
medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device (IDEA,
2004, p. 118, Section 601).

Assistive technology is categorized as low-, mid-, and high-tech. An example of low-

tech is a pencil grip, highlighter, or reading line. Mid-tech is considered to be items such as an

adaptive mouse or talking books. High-tech is more complex, for example, computer-based
5

reading software or speech generating devices.

Universal Design for Learning

The concept of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was written into the Assistive

Technology Act of 1998 and defined as: A scientifically valid framework for guiding

educational practices that provide a variety of means of representation, expression, and

engagement (Edyburn, 2013). The UDL framework for instructional design is flexible and

supportive for all learners, including those with disabilities (Hall, Cohen, & Vue, 2014). UDL is

an approach to learning that incorporates flexibility to accommodate students with diverse

learning needs. UDL provides learners with a variety of ways to access and engage in learning

experiences in the general education classrooms (Edyburn, 2013). The goal of UDL is to lower

learning barriers for students and provide support that helps students develop skills and become

independent, self-regulated learners (Rose, Hasselbring, & Zabala, 2007). UDL and AT depend

on the use of technology. They have similar goals of increasing access, participation, and

progress of students with disabilities. Using the UDL approach, educators create learning

environments from the beginning of concept development to accommodate individuals with a

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 6

wide range of abilities (Rose et al., 2007). For example, using flexibility to demonstrate

knowledge, a student may have the option of making a video, completing a worksheet, or

creating a graphic.

TPACK Framework

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a framework that supports

the integration of technology into teaching and learning by intertwining three knowledge bases:

technology, curriculum, and pedagogy (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). TPACK seeks to develop

better techniques for implementing technology-related knowledge into practice (Koehler &

Mishra, 2009). TPACK suggests that teachers need more than just an understanding of content

knowledge. They need to understand which specific technologies are best for addressing

subject-matter learning. Technology influences content and content influences technology.

Educators are required to be knowledgeable in pedagogy, content, and technology in order to

blend the three areas together. TPACK is the basis for successful teaching with technology

(Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2017). Although challenging, incorporating AT into the technological

component of TPACK would strengthen connections with the inclusion model and therefore

enhance the teacher’s ability to create universally designed classrooms (Koehler & Mishra,
6

2009).

Barriers to Technology Integration

Teachers report several barriers to integrating technology into classroom learning

environments, including inadequate training and insufficient support staff (Bausch &

Hasselbring, 2004). To sufficiently prepare preservice teachers, IHE need to train them to create

and modify the educational experience for students by including the use of technology such as

AT (Crider, Johnston, Rutledge, Doolitte, & Beard, 2014).

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 7

Why Integrate AT into Education?

The integration of technology to support students with disabilities is mandated by

legislation and recommended by professional organizations. The Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA, 1997) and its amendments (2004) require that all educational teams

serving students with Individualized Educational Programs (IEP) must consider various assistive

technologies and identify services to support their implementation.

These mandates require that teachers must:

1. be aware of technologies that are available,
2. be able to select devices or programs that can increase the performance and functioning
of their students,
3. be able to assist the students with using the technologies and evaluating their
effectiveness in instructional environments,
4. effectively integrate the technologies into instruction to ensure improved performance on
the part of the learner, while also collaborating with related service providers, parents,
and/or technology specialists (Van Laarhoven, Chandler, Munk, & Zurita, 2010, p. 3766).

Legislation requires IHE to prepare future educators to use AT to ensure that the

educators are able to meet their responsibilities to students receiving special education services

(Van Laarhoven et al., 2008). The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2001) emphasized

the importance of preparing teachers to be proficient with AT by establishing standards for

preservice teachers (Van Laarhoven et al., 2008). Furthermore, the National Council for the

Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has accepted the standards that the International

Society for Technology Education (ISTE 2002) established in order to promote the integration of

technology in IHE teacher preparation programs (Van Laarhoven et al., 2008). Legislation and

researchers recommend that university special education programs prepare preservice teachers to

use AT (Judge & Simms, 2009).

How is AT Being Integrated into IHE Preservice Programs?

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 8

In 2009, Judge and Simms completed a study with 162 special education teacher

preparation programs regarding the current practices of AT course delivery for special educators.

The study examined how IHE throughout the United States prepare special education teachers to

use AT. The researchers found that approximately 30% of undergraduate programs and less than

25% of graduate degree programs require AT course work. The researchers reported that these

findings indicate a lack of AT training at the preservice level. They note that the study did not

conduct an in-depth coursework analysis; therefore, special education programs included in the

study may not require an AT course, but could integrate AT into coursework or fieldwork.

In 2012, Bausch and Ault completed a research survey to determine the status of AT

instruction in programs preparing personnel to work in schools. The survey was completed for

the National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI) in cooperation with the Office of

Special Education Programs (OSEP). A total of 231 surveys were completed by IHE, of which,

52% at the undergraduate level and 75% at the graduate level indicated that they were providing

some instruction in AT. When study participants were asked about barriers to implementation of

the instruction of AT, participants responded that they lacked resources to purchase AT, lacked

support staff and storage facilities, and lacked time to learn software and devices. The

researchers reported that it is vital for IHE to implement high quality AT instruction that extends

beyond a general awareness. Although researchers recommend and legislation states that AT be

integrated throughout special education teacher preparation programs, several factors make this a

difficult task, including lack of faculty expertise, lack of resources, and limitations for increased

content (Van Laarhoven, Munk, Chandler, Zurita, & Lynch, 2009).

After surveying IHE across the United States, Judge and Simms (2009) and Bausch and

Ault (2012) agreed that AT can positively affect students’ outcomes. However, the studies
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 9

recognized a lack of AT training at the preservice level. Judge and Simms (2009) stated that

most IHE introduce AT to students by integrating AT into the curriculum of pre-existing courses

or have one course that provides a basic overview. Further research examining course syllabi is

suggested to address the adequacy of AT integration during teacher preparation programs. 7

The purpose of this paper is to review teacher preparation programs and identify

strengths and barriers that IHE may need to consider when implementing teacher preparation and

AT to preservice educators. The following research question will be answered:

 What are the current approaches being used to integrate technology, specifically AT, into

the preservice special education curriculum?

 What are the strengths and barriers that IHE encounter while implementing AT at the

preservice level?

Study One

Method

Data Collection

This literature synthesis examined how IHE integrate technology into preservice special

education curricula. To begin, a search was conducted on the following three databases:

Academic Search Complete, Education Research Complete, and ERIC from 2009 to the present.

To perform the search regarding scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles, the following key

terms were used in various combinations: teacher preparation, preservice teachers, assistive

8
technology, integration, teacher preparation programs, special education, classroom, institutes of

higher education, teacher education, and technology integration. The initial search revealed 258

articles. Upon examination of the titles, these articles were reduced to 38 articles that appeared

relevant. In addition, descendent and hand searches were completed to find additional relevant
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 10

research. Descendent searches were conducted using Crider, Johnston, Rutledge, Doolittle, and

Beard (2014); Laarhoven,

9 Monk, Chandler, Zurita, Lynch (2012); and Bryant, Erin, Lock, Allen,

and Resta (1998). To conclude the search, a hand search was completed
10
using the Journal of

Special Education Technology between the years 2009 through 2019. At the conclusion of this

rigorous analysis, four articles were identified that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The articles were published between 2012-2018 in the following journals: Universal Journal of

Educational Research, Rural Special Education Quarterly, Learning Disabilities, and Assistive

Technology Outcomes and Benefits.

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion

The literature search for preservice teacher preparation and AT was conducted using

three criteria for inclusion. First, all articles addressed preservice teacher preparation at IHE. In

addition, the articles were peer reviewed and published between 2009 and 2019. Studies were

excluded11from the search if they addressed preservice visual impairment programs or in-service

teachers. Studies were also eliminated that took place outside of the United States. The studies
12

and their identified way of implementation of AT is located in Table 1.

Results

Institutions and Programs

In 2002, Northern Illinois University (NIU) participated in a four-year state grant, Project

Achieving Creative & Collaborative Educational Preservice Teams (ACCEPT) (Van Laarhoven,

Munk, Chandler, Zurita, and Lynch, 2012). Project ACCEPT evolved into three phases (1)

infuse AT into courses, (2) expand the AT lab, and (3) increase AT integration among faculty.

During stage one of Project ACCEPT, AT was introduced in several special education courses.

Preservice candidates and course instructors received instruction on UDL and AT. Following
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 11

stage one of the project, survey evaluations were used to assess the project’s effectiveness. The

survey indicated that teacher candidates had significantly increased their knowledge of AT after

stage one. Due to Project ACCEPT’s success, NIU purchased more AT equipment to

accommodate the faculty that wanted to include AT in their courses. Therefore, stage two of

Project ACCEPT focused on the expansion of the AT Lab in order to provide hands-on learning

experiences. In January 2004, a second AT Lab was created and equipped with new computers,

devices, and software licenses. Devices included augmentative and alternative communication

(AAC) devices, switches, and iPads. The last phase of the grant focused on the knowledge and

efficacy of NIU’s faculty. This was achieved by promoting co-teaching, faculty professional

development opportunities, and AT video tutorials.

All three strategies used during Project ACCEPT enhanced knowledge and awareness, as

well as, promoted integration of AT. The final step to address the integration of AT in teacher

preparation programs was to distribute content and techniques across the curriculum. During

Project ACCEPT, findings indicated that novice faculty had not developed a working knowledge

of AT and this hindered their ability to develop learning activities in future courses. They

continued to depend on knowledgeable staff to provide learning opportunities for the preservice

educators. Integration of AT into preparation programs assures that preservice teachers are

introduced to AT content early and begin to develop knowledge to become proficient with AT in

order to support students with disabilities in the classroom settings (Van Laarhoven et al., 2012).

Poel, Wood, and Schmidt (2013) completed an AT research study with a southwestern

university. The university designed an AT module to be taught in a seminar course for

preservice teachers. The 90-minute seminar module was used to increase awareness and

knowledge of AT including the purpose of AT, the laws addressing AT, and explore a variety of
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 12

AT devices. The study used a pretest/posttest survey to determine preservice teachers’ prior

knowledge, the effectiveness of the module, and the impact that the AT module had on

classroom practice. The survey concluded that the module was effective, and several preservice

teachers described how they were going to integrate AT into their student teaching experience.

Poel et al., (2013) reported that there is minimal research to guide IHE on the amount, content, or

type of instruction into special education programs; therefore, further research is needed.

After faculty at the University of Tennessee Chattanooga (UTC) identified the need to

address AT in specific courses, they received a state grant to purchase software to provide

preservice teachers hands-on experience with the use of AT programs. Preservice educators

received training in the appropriate use and selection of AT through an in-depth training seminar

and required assignments (Crider et al. 2014). For example, a required assignment could be to

incorporate the use of AT into a lesson plan to differentiate instruction for struggling students.

The authors state that the program continues to evolve to provide candidates a means to meet

student’s individual needs. Challenges continue to exist for teacher educators to implement AT

curriculum within courses, because existing courses are already filled with other essential

knowledge and skills. At UTC, teacher candidates are not only informed about the importance

of the use of AT in the classroom but are given opportunities to train and have hands-on

experience with the devices. Crider et al. (2014) noted that teachers need the working

knowledge of AT to successfully collaborate with their colleagues to meet individual students’

needs.

To address the need for integrating AT competencies, East Carolina University (ECU)

developed professional development AT learning modules (King & Allen, 2018). Their goal

was to increase teacher candidates’ awareness, knowledge, and skills. The modules were
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 13

strategically developed and integrated into each special education course to align with the

student’s plan of study. The on-campus AT Lab developed and supported the learning modules.

Student modules are accessed through blackboard and include a video, assignments, and

assessment. Through the use of these modules, ECU shifted from a single AT course model to

embedding an AT curriculum across the program’s course sequence. ECU noted that the biggest

challenge was student-staff turnover at the AT lab. Two students maintained the AT lab and

facilitated sessions each semester; therefore, ongoing staff training is needed. Overall, the

authors noted several benefits of using the AT module implementation plan, such as, increased

awareness and self-efficacy among novice special education teachers that are prepared to work

effectively in diverse classrooms.

Study 2

Due to the paucity in published peer-reviewed journal articles focused on special

education personnel preparation and AT, a second study was designed to examine the highest

rated special education programs and the integration of AT into their curriculum.

Method

Data Collection

The top five special education programs listed by U.S. News and World Report were

examined for this study. A search of each IHE website was completed to identify the department

chairperson or related faculty. Emails were sent to each university asking the following

questions:

 How does the university prepare special educators for awareness and use of AT?

 Is there a single course that focuses on AT?

 Is AT integrated into personnel preparation coursework or fieldwork?

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 14

Results

Three of the five IHE that was contacted responded to the email questions. One

university replied that their program utilizes a single course to increases awareness of AT. One

university utilized a multi-course implementation of AT into the special education pre-service

curriculum. One department chair for a university responded that his university does not address

AT into their personnel prep program.

Data Analysis

Data was collected from two sources for this synthesis. The first study identified four

peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2012 and 2018. The second study utilized the

five highest-rated special education universities according to U.S. News and World Report.

Three of the five universities responded to email questions regarding the integration of AT into

special education teacher preparation programs. Between the two studies, a total of nine

programs were included. Of these nine programs, four embedded AT throughout courses

throughout their curriculum, two provided a single AT course, and three either did not respond or

do not provide AT instruction.

Conclusions and Discussion

Nine universities were included in this literature synthesis. Four universities were

identified from the following journals: Universal Journal of Educational Research, Rural

Special Education Quarterly, Learning Disabilities, and Assistive Technology Outcomes and

Benefits. Also included were the five universities with the highest-rated special education

programs according to U.S. News and World Report. The universities used a variety of methods

to integrate AT into their curriculum.

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 15

The first research question that guided this literature synthesis refers to the current

approaches being used to integrate technology, specifically AT, into the preservice special

education curriculum. Current approaches include the integration of AT into a number of

courses across the curriculum, according to four universities. One of the universities expanded

their program from providing a single course to integrating AT into multiple courses and

providing a lab for the teacher candidates to get hands-on experience. Three universities require

on-line modules that are completed with course work. Two universities provide a single course

to introduce AT to their students. Three universities did not reply or did not integrate AT into

their curriculum.

The second research question addressed the strengths and barriers that IHE encounter

while implementing AT at the preservice level. Strengths noted by the universities included

positive results from surveys and more thorough understanding of AT awareness and use. One

university created learning modules and found that they were beneficial for use in subsequent

semesters. Barriers that were stated included lack of training, scarcity of trained AT teachers,

and a full curriculum.

Results indicated that universities had positive experiences with adapting the AT integration

process. However, there have been barriers that need to be overcome to continue the integration

of AT. One university stated that they were modifying their single course program to integrate

AT throughout the curriculum. Giving students the opportunity to increase awareness and use of

AT during preservice courses may help prepare teachers to use these devices in the classroom to
13

better meet diverse student needs.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 16

This research literature synthesis focused on the integration of AT into university special

education preservice teacher programs. The research revealed a range of integration into the

programs provided by universities to increase awareness and use of AT. IDEA, CEC, and

NCATE have acknowledged the need for the universities’ special education programs to prepare

preservice teachers to use AT (Judge & Simms, 2009). However, there is no standard for how

much or how often AT should be integrated.

The minimal data retrieved for this study is a limitation. Further investigation should

include more universities and more detail regarding how the programs are implemented. Two

surveys were completed in 2009 and 2012 regarding the integration of AT into university

programs. The surveys identified the need for AT integration into preservice programs. A

subsequent survey could provide national information and reveal changes since 2012. Overall,

more information would benefit the body of literature that is available regarding AT and special
14

education preservice teachers.

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 17

Table 1

University Implementation of AT

University Type of Challenges/Barriers Strengths/Outcomes

Implementation

Northern Illinois Purchased AT, Co-teaching was Effective video

University integrated into not sustained, tutorials

several courses, faculty required

expanded AT lab, co- more intense

teaching training

arrangements, video

tutorials

A southwestern 90-minute seminar Scarcity of trained Post survey results

university (unnamed in AT teachers indicated positive

the study) results

University of Single course, Curriculum is full,

Tennessee-Chattanooga software purchases, Lack of training

faculty training

East Carolina Professional Student-staff Graduates have a

University development modules turnover thorough

throughout understanding of AT,

coursework. including assessment

AT laboratory and hands on

experience.
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 18

Table 2

Universities contacted via email

University Reported Responses

1 AT is integrated into select courses

2 Embedded across the curriculum and an AAC course.

3 No integration of AT in the curriculum

(According to the school’s website there are five

courses that integrate IT into the curriculum.)

4 No response

5 No response
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 19

References

Bausch, M. E., & Ault, M. J. (2012). Status of assistive technology instruction in university

personnel preparation programs. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 8, 1-14.

Bausch, M. E., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2004). Assistive technology: Are the necessary skills and

knowledge being developed at the preservice and inservice levels? Teacher Education

and Special Education, 27, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640402700202

Bryant, D. P., Erin, J., Allan, J. M., Resta, P. E. (1998). Infusing a teacher preparation program

in learning disabilities with assistive technology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 55-

66.

Carver, L. B. (2016). Teacher perception of barriers and benefits in K-12 technology usage. The

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15, 110-116.

Courduff, J., & Szapkiw, A. (2015). Technology integration in the resource specialist program

environment: Research-based strategies for technology integration in complex learning

environments. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 8,81–98. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11829

4013&site=ehost-live

Crider, T. K., Johnston, L., Rutledge, V., Doolittle, A. L., & Beard, L. (2014). Assistive

technology at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga: Providing pre-service educators

with the opportunity to utilize assistive technology as an instructional strategy. Universal

Journal of Educational Research, 2(4), 326-329. doi:10.13189/ujer.2014.020402

Edyburn, D. L., Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (2005). Handbook of special education technology

research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 20

Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence

base. Exceptional Children, 80, 7-24.

Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL

and technology: Strategic reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 72–83.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714544375

Hall, T., Vue, G., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2004). Differentiated instruction and

implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the

General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). Retrieved from

http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl.html

Harvey, D., & Caro, R. (2017). Building TPACK in preservice teachers through explicit course

design. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 61, 106–114.

https://doi-org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1007/s11528-016-0120-x

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U. S. C. A. SYMBOL 1400-1485 (2004

supp. IV), Publ L. No. 108-446 (2004), 108th Congress, Second Session.

Jost, M. B., & Mosley, B. F. (2011). Where IT’s AT? Teachers, assistive technology, and

instructional technology. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 3(2), 5–16.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=69616

369&site=ehost-live

Judge, S., & Simms, K. A. (2009). Assistive technology training at the pre-service level: A

National Snapshot of Teacher Preparation Programs. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 32, 33–44. Retrieved from

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 21

http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ863

788&site=ehost-live

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60-70.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Kul, U., Aksu, Z., Birisci, S. (2019). The relationship between technological pedagogical content

knowledge and web 2.0 self-efficacy beliefs. International Online journal of Educational

Sciences 11(1), 198-213.

Liu, G. Z., Wu, N., & Chen, Y. W. (2016). Identifying emerging trends for implementing

learning technology in special education: A state-of-the-art review of selected articles

published in 2008-2012. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 3618-3628.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.007

Manning, J. B., & Carpenter, L. B. (2008). Assistive technology WebQuest: Improving learning

for preservice teachers. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve

Learning, 52(6), 47–52. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ838

472&site=ehost-live

Marino, M. T., Sameshima, P., & Beecher, C. C. (2009). Enhancing TPACK with assistive

technology: Promoting inclusive practices in preservice teacher education. Contemporary

Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 187–207. Retrieved from

ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 22

http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ904

589&site=ehost-live

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. Teacher

College Record, 108, 1017-1054

Morse, M. L. (2010). Assistive technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(2), 57–

61. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=54305

462&site=ehost-live

Nguyen, N. N., Lyons, C., Rogers-Adkinson, D., Bohannon, L., Fridley, D., Gunn, S., & Smith,

S. (2016). An alternative undergraduate teacher preparation program: A comprehensive

one-to-one iPad initiative model. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(35), 149–160.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ112

6522&site=ehost-live

Poel, E. W., Wood, J., Schmidt, N. (2013). Including assistive technology in teacher preparation:

Exploring one approach. Learning Disabilities, 19, 29-37.

Rock, M. L., Smith, S., Thomas, C. N., Regan, C., Vasquez, E., Kennedy,… Bausch, M. (2017).

Commentary: A response to an interview with Joseph South by the teacher education and

technology and media divisions of the Council for Exceptional Children. Contemporary

Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3). Retrieved

from https://www.citejournal.org/volume-17/issue-3-17/editorial/commentary-a-

response-to-an-interview-with-joseph-smith-by-the-council-on-exceptional-children
ASSITIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER PREP 23

Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2007). Assistive technology and

universal design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, &

R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp.

507-518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.

Safhi, M. Y., Zhou, L., Smith, D. W., & Kelley, P. (2009). Assistive technology in teacher-

training programs: A national and international perspective. Journal of Visual

Impairment & Blindness, 103(9), 562–568. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ858

199&site=ehost-live

Van Laarhovn, T., Chandler, L., Munk, D., & Zurita, L. (2010). Video tutorials: A promising

strategy for integrating assistive technology into teacher education programs. Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the

Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D.D., Chandler, L. K., Zurita, L., & Lynch, K. (2012). Integrating

assistive technology into teacher education programs: Trials, tribulations, and lessons

learned. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 8(1) 32-47.

Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Zurita, L. M., Lynch, K., Zurita, B., Smith, T., & Chandler, L.

(2008). The Effectiveness of Video Tutorials for Teaching Preservice Educators to Use

Assistive Technologies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(4), 31–45.

https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340802300403
Comment Summary
Page 1
1. Put your title on the first line
Page 3
2. I really like this quote; however, it is must easier on the reader if you include an introduction or conclusion in
your own words as part of the sentence that includes the quote. For example, According to Edyburn, Higgins,
and Boone (2005), "....
Page 4
3. This paragraph begs for an example to help the reader understand exactly what technology you are referring to
4. Great use of example here!
Page 5
5. Again, great integration of examples
Page 6
6. I really like that you've included these frameworks into this paper. To move forward, I think this section needs
to really come out and say "here are the things that teachers need to learn"
Page 9
7. It's always good to transition to your purpose/research questions by summing up what you've presented..
Therefore, given....
8. I wonder if using UDL and TPACK as terms would broaden your literature pool?
Page 10
9. Why?
10. Why?
11. why?
12. Love the table--clean and helpful
Page 15
13. It would be helpful, in this section, to go back to some of the information/research you included in your
introduction--was there any mention of UDL and/or TPACK in these program descriptions? etc.
Page 16
14. Yes--these are great conclusions that warrant further development