Class #6 Reflection

To prepare for our 6^th class, we were asked to research and identify 4 main AT assessment models.  I will be honest- when we were given this assignment, I thought- easy!  How wrong I was!  It took an hour of research to find these models and then about 6 hours of further research to prepare my presentation.  I guess that I hadn’t really thought too much about assessment models and the fact that there aren’t any standardized models.  Thinking about it now, it does make sense- assessments must be individualized for each user and guidelines for AT assessments must be based on research, best practices, and the experience of both the AT professionals and AT users.   

For my presentation, I looked at these models: HAAT, SETT, MPT and WATI.  I found it interesting- a few days before our class, I was researching for my blog.  I found the NS DoE document on AT and WATI is discussed in this document.  Part of the WATI model is actually used in this NS document and I added this link in my blog.  I had found a ton of helpful information for anyone interested in AT.

In researching these models, I came up with these commonalities:

·        All identify the need of the person

·        Collaborative process

·        Find the right AT for the person- match the technology to the person

·        All stress a user-centered focus

·        Not just one step- each model has a variety of steps and processes that must be completed

·        Assessments are on-going- not just a one shot deal

Morrison states in her article that technology strategic planning is essential and this belief is one of the commonalities that I discovered in the AT assessment models that I researched.   Another point that Morrison commented on several times was the need for teachers and support staff to be properly trained on the AT being used to support their students.  The author states that teacher who wish to have training must do it on their own, or rely on local training.  I know for myself, I have to ask for training on any new software, products and AT that is available.  I am very fortunate to have an administrator who purchases new AT and encourages her staff to learn how to use any new technology being offered and our school is very technology rich for this reason. 

Morrison states that “the potential for ACT can only be realized if educators and those supporting ACT services are trained in instructional methodologies that allow ACT to be integrated in a meaningful way” (p.84).  This speaks to the need for teachers to be trained in AT.  Reading this article reminded me of one of the group’s surveys in which 88% of staff in their 3 schools felt that they had little to no training on AT.  When you look at the components of the AT assessment models, training and on-going support are vital parts of these models.  The author maintains that teachers are one of the most critical factors if AT implementation is to be successful and for this reason, teachers must be comfortable and able to use this AT in order to help their students achieve success in school.  Without staff being trained on the AT that their students are using, I believe that student achievement will continue to suffer. 

Morrison states that while some AT might be appropriate for one student with learning problems, that same At may not be helpful for another student experiencing similar difficulties. AT programming must therefore be individualized.  I liked the 2 questions that she then asked: what ACT is appropriate for which students and how are these decisions made; is the use of ACT being evaluated for effectiveness; and what is the impact of ACT on learning?  I believe that these questions are the underlying bases of the assessment for the AT assessment models- there must be a user-centered focus and one must match the right AT to the right person. 

The table designed by Marcia Scherer is a good resource to use when finding the right AT for the person.  While this table should form only part of the AT assessment, it is a vital component in creating an individualized plan.  The table is a checklist for the user and I believe that it was designed to assist in making the process more user-centered.  It has 4 sections- from optimal AT use to abandonment.  It looks at 3 categories- milieu, personality and technology.  I think this table is very important during the collaborative process in assigned AT for a person.  Identifying issues such as unmotivated, lacks confidence, resistant, depressed, negative outlook and not comfortable with technology means that the student/person will unlikely use the AT suggested.  As well, realistic expectations, family/school support and the proper setting must be in place.  Finally, training, opportunities to succeed, and AT that is safe, reliable and easy for the user to use must be on-going.