The only way to truly predict the future is to invent it.
- Alan Kay, chief scientist at Apple Computer, 1985

In a Peanuts cartoon, Sally is at the front of the class sharing her report on Walter Diemer. She explains that Walter Diemer is the inventor of bubble gum and then blows a bubble. After popping her bubble she proceeds to inform the class that they should all be grateful to Mr. Diemer, at which point she stops again to blow another bubble. The teacher, somewhat confused, asks Sally what she is doing. Sally responds, “Audio visuals, ma’am.” (Graham et al., 2001)

Audio visuals, and technology, have come a long way from Sally’s class presentation. In fact, around the same time Sally was presenting her report, Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel, made a memorable observation. In 1965, he graphed the growth in memory chip performance against time. This graph showed a striking trend that each new chip contained roughly twice as much capacity as its predecessor, and each chip was released within 18 to 24 months of the previous chip. He predicted that, based on this graph, computing power will exponentially increase over relatively brief periods of time (Hasselbring, 2001). This concept has come to be known has Moore’s law.

The digital divide, accessibility to technology, is typically defined as the ratio of students to computer within a school environment. However, Hasselbring (2001) argues that students with disabilities have a greater need for accessing technology than do their non-disabled peers. This may be especially true for students who require technology to simply function within the school environment, for example, students with sensory or physical impairments. Therefore, Hasselbring is not convinced that the digital divide has been reduced within the school environment.

It is important to realize that we, as a society, are in the middle of the revolution in information technology (Tinker, 2001). Tinker argues that this revolution is far from complete. For example, Windows 3.1 looks feeble and clumsy to us today (2004), yet at the time was considered to be impressive compared to DOS. In another ten years, the computer used to write this literature review will be no more than a door stop. Tinker argues that this change is congruent with Moore’s Law, and that this type of exponential change applies to the entire information industry, not just the density of transistors on computer chips.

Inclusion is the activity of making individuals with disabilities members of a larger group (Rubin and Roessler, 2001). When full integration occurs, individuals with disabilities join other members of society in all aspects of education, employment and leisure time activities. In fact, for Ontario educators, the Ontario Ministry of Education regulations state “the integration of exceptional students should be the normal practice in Ontario, when such a placement meets the pupil’s needs and is in accordance with parental wishes (O. Reg. 181/98, s. 17 (1)).

Beginning in the early 1970's both the United States and Canada developed public policies and laws regarding accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Because of these policies and laws, many things formerly thought to be impossible for individuals with disabilities are now not only possible, but commonplace (Rose, 2001). For example, individuals with disabilities now have a right to a free and appropriate public school education with educational buildings that are physically accessible. However, Rose argues that the curricula, materials and methods for learning inside those buildings are too frequently NOT available or accessible for students with disabilities.

Universal design is a concept that originated in the field of architecture. It is the concept of building accessibility into structures during the design process (Muller & Tschantz, 2003). Architects and the construction industry have generally found that it is better and less expensive to practice universal design rather than to retrofit solutions (Rose, 2001).

This concept is now being adapted to the field of education. The term Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was coined by the Centre for Applied Special Technology (CAST, www.cast.org) to describe learning technology that provides access to the curriculum for students with and without disabilities. At CAST, they believe that by helping those who are marginalized in traditional classrooms, they are discovering educational methods and materials that are flexible and powerful enough to help all students, regardless of their ability, maximize their progress. UDL focuses on creating instructional methods, materials and classroom activities for students with disabilities without the traditional barriers rather than adapting existing curricula (Muller & Tschantz, 2003). Rose (2001) further argues that when building new technology, we need to ensure that it is universally designed.

Rose (2001) defines assistive technologies as applications, either hardware or software, that are developed specifically to assist individuals with disabilities in overcoming barriers. CAST has outlined principles to help guide curricular planning with regards to reducing barriers. These UDL principles outlined by CAST include the following:

1. Multiple representations of the information being presented. For example, information being presented in both printed and spoken text.
2. Multiple means of expression and control. For example, recording responses in oral and written text and control through touch or voice.
3. Multiple means of motivating and engaging students. For example, customize the degrees of complexity, structured novelty.

These principles could also be applied to the design and development of assistive or adaptive technology.

The Website

All students, including exceptional students, have a unique set of learning strengths and needs. It is as important to identify a student’s strengths as it is to determine his or her needs. Many factors - physical, intellectual, educational, cultural, emotional, and social - influence a student’s ability to learn. The student’s strengths can be used to address his or her weaknesses. Understanding and noting them is critical to appropriate program development. (Ontario Ministry of Education)

This website is designed to help educators find adaptive technology suitable for exceptional students in their classrooms. The website categorizes technology (software and hardware) according to both assistive ability and exceptionality. It describes exceptionalities according to the Ontario Ministry of Education definitions, and it explores the technology through a variety of practical activities and links to various related websites.

It is intended that the technology included here, when implemented in a classroom, will actually support all students in the class as they begin to understand and build on their individual strengths, come to recognize thier own needs, and learn that assistance is available in many forms.

References

• Graham, S., K.R. Harris, L. Larsen, (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 16(2): 74-84.

• Hasselbring, T.S. (2001). A Possible Future of Special Education Technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4); 15-21.

• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990). 20 U.S.C.S 1400 et seq.

• Muller, E. and J. Tschantz (2003). Universal design for learning: Four state initiative. QTA - a brief analysis of a critical issue in special education.

• Orange, L.M., M.G. Brodwin (2002). Support programs for students with disabilities in public schools. Building Stronger School Counselling Programs: Bringing Futuristic Approaches into the Present.

• Rose, D. (2001). Universal Design for Learning, Associate Editor’s Column. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4); 64-67.

• Rubin, S.E. and R.T. Roessler (2001). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (5th ed.): Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

• Tinker, R. (2001). Future Technologies For Special Learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4); 31-37.