Volume 7 -
MEJDS (2017) 7: 103 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nemati S, Taghipour K. The Role of Assistive Technology in Improving the Quality of Learning in People with Special Educational Needs: A Systematic Review Study in Developmental Disabilities Aria. MEJDS 2017; 7 :103-103
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-915-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-915-en.html
1- Tabriz University
Abstract: (7392 Views)
Background & Objective: In recent years, with the advances of technology, educating exceptional learners has been influenced by the use of assistive technologies. Assistive technology is defined as an “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 functional capabilities of a children with special educational needs”. These assistive technologies were used to teach Exceptional Learners who have significant differences with peers in mental characteristics, sensory abilities, communication, emotional-behavior development and physical characteristics. The aim of the current research was to study the role of assistive technology in improving the quality of learning in people with special educational needs.
Methods: A systematic review study method was employed using the following key search words includes: Assistive technology, Instructional Technology, Learning Technology about exceptional learners, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Specific Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Emotional-Behavior Disorder, Communication, Language, and Speech Disorders, Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Visual Impairments or Blindness, Children with Physical Disabilities, Health Impairments and Multiple Disabilities from. Dada were collected from the following data bases: PubMed, Springer, ProQuest, Scopus, Elsevier, Science direct, Google Scholar, between1993-2017.
Results: Among 83 selected research papers about applying assistive technology in special educational needs areas, 38 papers addressed specific learning disabilities. No research was found about applying assistive technology in emotional-behavior disorders. In the same vein, the majority of papers (57%) were experimental studies. A great number of studies focused on instructional software used to teach individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Specific Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Communication, Language, and Speech Disorders, Hearing and Visual Impairments, Physical and Multiple Disabilities. The results of most studies indicated that there is a positive effect of assistive technology on a most of disorders in special educational needs or exceptional children areas.
Conclusion: It seems that most of researches found evidence supporting the positive effects of assistive technology and its effects on children with special education needs. Application and using technology can help students with special educational needs to enhance and improve their independence in academic and employment tasks, their participation in classroom discussions, along with helping them to accomplish some difficult academic tasks. The use of assistive technology in educating people with special educational needs is inevitable, the evidence-based researches support the conclusion that assistive technologies have the potential to contribute to a better quality of life for students with developmental disabilities, which are more than just a matter of conveniences. In special educational needs area, it is very important to ensure that people with disabilities are prepared to meet the challenges of life. Many technological tools such as assistive technology could increase, as much as possible, the possibilities for people with disabilities to overcome these challenges with fewer difficulties. In Iran developing assistive technology programs in developmental disabilities areas and studying its effect on these groups is needed.
Methods: A systematic review study method was employed using the following key search words includes: Assistive technology, Instructional Technology, Learning Technology about exceptional learners, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Specific Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Emotional-Behavior Disorder, Communication, Language, and Speech Disorders, Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Visual Impairments or Blindness, Children with Physical Disabilities, Health Impairments and Multiple Disabilities from. Dada were collected from the following data bases: PubMed, Springer, ProQuest, Scopus, Elsevier, Science direct, Google Scholar, between1993-2017.
Results: Among 83 selected research papers about applying assistive technology in special educational needs areas, 38 papers addressed specific learning disabilities. No research was found about applying assistive technology in emotional-behavior disorders. In the same vein, the majority of papers (57%) were experimental studies. A great number of studies focused on instructional software used to teach individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Specific Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Communication, Language, and Speech Disorders, Hearing and Visual Impairments, Physical and Multiple Disabilities. The results of most studies indicated that there is a positive effect of assistive technology on a most of disorders in special educational needs or exceptional children areas.
Conclusion: It seems that most of researches found evidence supporting the positive effects of assistive technology and its effects on children with special education needs. Application and using technology can help students with special educational needs to enhance and improve their independence in academic and employment tasks, their participation in classroom discussions, along with helping them to accomplish some difficult academic tasks. The use of assistive technology in educating people with special educational needs is inevitable, the evidence-based researches support the conclusion that assistive technologies have the potential to contribute to a better quality of life for students with developmental disabilities, which are more than just a matter of conveniences. In special educational needs area, it is very important to ensure that people with disabilities are prepared to meet the challenges of life. Many technological tools such as assistive technology could increase, as much as possible, the possibilities for people with disabilities to overcome these challenges with fewer difficulties. In Iran developing assistive technology programs in developmental disabilities areas and studying its effect on these groups is needed.
Type of Study: Systematic Review Article |
Subject:
Rehabilitation
References
1. Schneider SL. The international standard classification of education 2011. Class and stratification analysis: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2013. p. 365-79. [DOI:10.1108/S0195-6310(2013)0000030017]
2. Kirk S, Gallagher JJ, Coleman MR, Anastasiow NJ. Educating exceptional children: Cengage Learning; 2011.
3. Dell AG, Newton DA, Petroff JG. Assistive technology in the classroom: Enhancing the school experiences of students with disabilities: Pearson; 2016.
4. Yell ML. The law and special education: ERIC; 1998.
5. Turnbull III HR. Individuals with disabilities education act reauthorization: Accountability and personal responsibility. Remedial and Special Education. 2005;26(6):320-6. [DOI:10.1177/07419325050260060201]
6. Post M, Storey K. Review of using auditory prompting systems with persons who have moderate to severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. 2002:317-27.
7. Mechling LC. Assistive technology as a self-management tool for prompting students with intellectual disabilities to initiate and complete daily tasks: A literature review. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities. 2007:252-69.
8. McCollum D, Nation S, Gunn S, editors. The Effects of a Speech-to-Text Software Application on Written Expression for Students with Various Disabilities. National Forum of Special Education Journal; 2014.
9. Stultz SL. The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction for teaching mathematics to students with specific learning disability. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship. 2013;2(2):7.
10. Boesch MC, Wendt O, Subramanian A, Hsu N. Comparative efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) versus a speech-generating device: effects on social-communicative skills and speech development. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2013;29(3):197-209.). [DOI:10.3109/07434618.2013.818059]
11. Bikic A, Leckman JF, Lindschou J, Christensen TØ, Dalsgaard S. Cognitive computer training in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) versus no intervention: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16(1):480. [DOI:10.1186/s13063-015-0975-8]
12. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Oliva D, Campodonico F. Further evaluation of a telephone technology for enabling persons with multiple disabilities and lack of speech to make phone contacts with socially relevant partners. Research in developmental disabilities. 2013;34(11):4178-83. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.08.042]
13. Goker H, Ozaydin L, Tekedere H. The Effectiveness and Usability of the Educational Software on Concept Education for Young Children with Impaired Hearing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 2016;12(1). [DOI:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1207a]
14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000100. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100]
15. Behrmann MM, Graff HJ. Word Prediction Software for Students with Writing Difficulties Anna Evmenova George Mason University.
16. Hetzroni OE, Shrieber B. Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2004;37(2):143-54. [DOI:10.1177/00222194040370020501]
17. Raskind MH, Higgins EL. Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia. 1999:251-81. [DOI:10.1007/s11881-999-0026-9]
18. de Castro MV, Bissaco MAS, Panccioni BM, Rodrigues SCM, Domingues AM. Effect of a virtual environment on the development of mathematical skills in children with dyscalculia. PloS one. 2014;9(7):e103354. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0103354]
19. Gotesman E, Goldfus C. The impact of assistive technologies on the reading outcomes of college students with disabilities. Educational Technology. 2010;50(3):21-5.
20. Berninger VW, Nagy W, Tanimoto S, Thompson R, Abbott RD. Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4-9. Computers & education. 2015;81:154-68. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.005]
21. Handley-More D, Deitz J, Billingsley FF, Coggins TE. Facilitating written work using computer word processing and word prediction. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2003;57(2):139-51. [DOI:10.5014/ajot.57.2.139]
22. Higgins EL, Raskind MH. Speaking to read: The effects of continuous vs. discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology. 1999;15(1):19-30. [DOI:10.1177/016264340001500102]
23. Higgins EL, Raskind MH. Speech recognition-based and automaticity programs to help students with severe reading and spelling problems. Annals of Dyslexia. 2004;54(2):365-88. [DOI:10.1007/s11881-004-0017-9]
24. MacArthur CA. Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning Disability Quarterly. 1999;22(3):158-72. [DOI:10.2307/1511283]
25. Lewis RB, Graves AW, Ashton TM, Kieley CL. Word Processing Tools for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Comparison of Strategies To Increase Text Entry Speed. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 1998;13(2):95-108.
26. MacArthur CA. Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 1998;21(2):151-66. [DOI:10.2307/1511342]
27. MacArthur CA, Cavalier AR. Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Exceptional Children. 2004;71(1):43-58. [DOI:10.1177/001440290407100103]
28. Silió MC, Barbetta PM. The effects of word prediction and text-to-speech technologies on the narrative writing skills of Hispanic students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2010;25(4):17-32. [DOI:10.1177/016264341002500402]
29. MacArthur CA, Graham S, Haynes JB, DeLaPaz S. Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. The Journal of Special Education. 1996;30(1):35-57. [DOI:10.1177/002246699603000103]
30. Blair RB, Ormsbee C, Brandes J. Using Writing Strategies and Visual Thinking Software To Enhance the Written Performance of Students with Mild Disabilities. 2002.
31. Cullen J, Richards SB, Frank CL. Using software to enhance the writing skills of students with special needs. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2008;23(2):33-44. [DOI:10.1177/016264340802300203]
32. Lange AA, McPhillips M, Mulhern G, Wylie J. Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2006;21(3):13-22. [DOI:10.1177/016264340602100302]
33. Zhang Y. Technology and the writing skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 2000;32(4):467-78. [DOI:10.1080/08886504.2000.10782292]
34. Unzueta CH. The use of a computer graphic organizer for persuasive composition writing by Hispanic students with specific learning disabilities. 2009.
35. Englert CS, Zhao Y, Dunsmore K, Collings NY, Wolbers K. Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2007;30(1):9-29. [DOI:10.2307/30035513]
36. Sturm JM, Rankin‐Erickson JL. Effects of hand‐drawn and computer‐generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2002;17(2):124-39. [DOI:10.1111/1540-5826.00039]
37. Montgomery DJ, Karlan GR, Coutinho M. The effectiveness of word processor spell checker programs to produce target words for misspellings generated by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2001;16(2):27-42. [DOI:10.1177/016264340101600202]
38. Quinlan T. Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004;96(2):337. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.337]
39. Wetzel K. Speech-recognizing computers: A written-communication tool for students with learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1996;29(4):371-80. [DOI:10.1177/002221949602900405]
40. Jimenez JE, del Rosario Ortiz M, Rodrigo M, Hernandez-Valle I, Ramirez G, Estevez A, et al. Do the Effects of Computer-Assisted Practice Differ for Children with Reading Disabilities With and Without IQ-Achievement Discrepancy? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2003;36(1):34-47. [DOI:10.1177/00222194030360010501]
41. Park HJ, Takahashi K, Roberts KD, Delise D. Effects of text-to-speech software use on the reading proficiency of high school struggling readers. Assistive Technology. 2016:1-7. [DOI:10.1080/10400435.2016.1171808]
42. Hasselbring TS, Lott AC, Zydney JM. Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. Retrieved December. 2005;12:2005.
43. Shiah R-L, Mastropieri MA, Scruggs TE, Mushinski Fulk BJ. The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematical problem solving of students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality. 1994;5(3):131-61. [DOI:10.1207/s15327035ex0503_2]
44. Seo Y-J, Bryant D. Multimedia CAI program for students with mathematics difficulties. Remedial and Special Education. 2012;33(4):217-25. [DOI:10.1177/0741932510383322]
45. Leh JM, Jitendra AK. Effects of computer-mediated versus teacher-mediated instruction on the mathematical word problem-solving performance of third-grade students with mathematical difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2013;36(2):68-79. [DOI:10.1177/0731948712461447]
46. Kalani S, Asgharinekah,SM., & Ghanaei Chamanabad, A. The effectiveness of linguistic play software package on reading accuracy and comprehension of students with reading disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities.(In persian) 2015;4(4):66-84.
47. Aghajani M, Hosseinkhanzadeh. A., & Kafi, M Effectiveness of N-Back training software on working memory in students with dyslexia.. Journal of Learning Disabilities. (In persian) 2015;4(3):121-7.
48. Azimi ESMP, S.. Instructional multimedia development of dictation assistant (Dicteyar) and its effectiveness on the academic achievement of the second grade students in primary school with dysgraphia in Arak. Journal of Learning Disabilities. (In persian) 2014;4(1):119-25.
49. Arjmandnia AA, Sharifi. A., & R. Rostami The effectiveness of computerized cognitive training on the performance of visual-spatial working memory of students with mathematical problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities. (In persian) 2014;3(4):143-50. [http://jld.uma.ac.ir/article_186.html]
50. Abdollahi S, Kianersi, F., & Rahimian Boogar, I. Designing the multimedia instructive package and investigating its effectiveness on reduction of writing disorder's symptoms. . Journal of Learning Disabilities. (In persian) 2014;3(3):122-18.
51. Pourahmadali A, & Musavipour, S. Educational multimedia production of hesabamooz and its dffectiveness on the academic achievement of minus and division operation of female students with dyscalculia. Journal of Learning Disabilities. (In persian) 2014;3(3):112-8.
52. Williams JH, Massaro DW, Peel NJ, Bosseler A, Suddendorf T. Visual-auditory integration during speech imitation in autism. Research in developmental disabilities. 2004;25(6):559-75. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.01.008]
53. Charlop-Christy MH, Le L, Freeman KA. A comparison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders. 2000;30(6):537-52. [DOI:10.1023/A:1005635326276]
54. Herring P, Herring P, Kear K, Kear K, Sheehy K, Sheehy K, et al. A virtual tutor for children with autism. Journal of Enabling Technologies. 2017;11(1):19-27. [DOI:10.1108/JET-01-2016-0006]
55. Schafer EC, Wright S, Anderson C, Jones J, Pitts K, Bryant D, et al. Assistive technology evaluations: Remote-microphone technology for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of communication disorders. 2016;64:1-17. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.08.003]
56. Chen SSA, Bernard-Opitz V. Comparison of personal and computer-assisted instruction for children with autism. Mental retardation. 1993;31(6):368.
57. Lahiri U, Bekele E, Dohrmann E, Warren Z, Sarkar N. Design of a virtual reality based adaptive response technology for children with autism. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2013;21(1):55-64. [DOI:10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2218618]
58. Fteiha MA. Effectiveness of assistive technology in enhancing language skills for children with autism. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities. 2017;63(1):36-44. [DOI:10.1080/20473869.2015.1136129]
59. Josman N, Ben-Chaim HM, Friedrich S, Weiss PL. Effectiveness of virtual reality for teaching street-crossing skills to children and adolescents with autism. International Journal on Disability and Human Development. 2008;7(1):49-56. [DOI:10.1515/IJDHD.2008.7.1.49]
60. Simpson A, Langone J, Ayres KM. Embedded video and computer based instruction to improve social skills for students with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities. 2004:240-52.
61. Lozano-Martínez J, Ballesta-Pagán FJ, Alcaraz-García S. Software for teaching emotions to students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Revista Comunicar. 2011;18(36):139-48. [DOI:10.3916/C36-2011-03-05]
62. Chen C-H, Wang C-P, Lee I-J, Su CC-C. Speech-generating devices: effectiveness of interface design-a comparative study of autism spectrum disorders. SpringerPlus. 2016;5(1):1682. [DOI:10.1186/s40064-016-3181-6]
63. Parsons CL, La Sorte D. The effect of computers with synthesized speech and no speech on the spontaneous communication of children with autism. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders. 1993;21(1):12-31. [DOI:10.3109/asl2.1993.21.issue-1.02]
64. Moore M, Calvert S. Brief report: Vocabulary acquisition for children with autism: Teacher or computer instruction. Journal of autism and developmental disorders. 2000;30(4):359-62. [DOI:10.1023/A:1005535602064]
65. Vélez-Coto M, Rodríguez-Fórtiz MJ, Rodriguez-Almendros ML, Cabrera-Cuevas M, Rodríguez-Domínguez C, Ruiz-López T, et al. SIGUEME: Technology-based intervention for low-functioning autism to train skills to work with visual signifiers and concepts. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2017;64:25-36. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2017.02.008]
66. Bittner MD, Rigby BR, Silliman-French L, Nichols DL, Dillon SR. Use of technology to facilitate physical activity in children with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot study. Physiology & Behavior. 2017;177:242-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.05.012]
67. Constantin A, Johnson H, Smith E, Lengyel D, Brosnan M. Designing computer-based rewards with and for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and/or Intellectual Disability. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.030]
68. Battocchi A, Ben-Sasson A, Esposito G, Gal E, Pianesi F, Tomasini D, et al. Collaborative puzzle game: a tabletop interface for fostering collaborative skills in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Assistive Technologies. 2010;4(1):4-13. [DOI:10.5042/jat.2010.0040]
69. Klingberg T, Fernell E, Olesen PJ, Johnson M, Gustafsson P, Dahlström K, et al. Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD-a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2005;44(2):177-86. [DOI:10.1097/00004583-200502000-00010]
70. Lim CG, Lee TS, Guan C, Fung DSS, Zhao Y, Teng SSW, et al. A brain-computer interface based attention training program for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PloS one. 2012;7(10):e46692. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0046692]
71. Lim CG, Lee T-S, Guan C, DS SF, Cheung YB, Teng S, et al. Effectiveness of a brain-computer interface based programme for the treatment of ADHD: a pilot study. 2017.
72. Van der Oord S, Ponsioen A, Geurts H, Brink ET, Prins P. A pilot study of the efficacy of a computerized executive functioning remediation training with game elements for children with ADHD in an outpatient setting: outcome on parent-and teacher-rated executive functioning and ADHD behavior. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2014;18(8):699-712. [DOI:10.1177/1087054712453167]
73. Steiner NJ, Sheldrick RC, Gotthelf D, Perrin EC. Computer-based attention training in the schools for children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a preliminary trial. Clinical pediatrics. 2011;50(7):615-22. [DOI:10.1177/0009922810397887]
74. Shalev L, Tsal Y, Mevorach C. Computerized progressive attentional training (CPAT) program: effective direct intervention for children with ADHD. Child neuropsychology. 2007;13(4):382-8. [DOI:10.1080/09297040600770787]
75. Gray S, Chaban P, Martinussen R, Goldberg R, Gotlieb H, Kronitz R, et al. Effects of a computerized working memory training program on working memory, attention, and academics in adolescents with severe LD and comorbid ADHD: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2012;53(12):1277-84. [DOI:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02592.x]
76. Sarmașik G, Serbetcioglu B, Kut A. Computer Aided Education and Training Tool for Hearing Impaired Children: AURIS. 2009.
77. Silman F, Yaratan H, Karanfiller T. Use of Assistive Technology for Teaching-Learning and Administrative Processes for the Visually Impaired People. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 2017;13(8):4805-13. [DOI:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00945a]
78. Zaraii Zavaraki E AH, Jafarkhani F. The Effect of Multimedia in Learning and Retention of English for Low Vision Students at Third Grade Middle School. JOEC. (In persian) 2012;12(1):17-24.
79. Stasolla F, Caffo AO, Picucci L, Bosco A. Assistive technology for promoting choice behaviors in three children with cerebral palsy and severe communication impairments. Research in developmental disabilities. 2013;34(9):2694-700. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.029]
80. Saz O, Yin S-C, Lleida E, Rose R, Vaquero C, Rodríguez WR. Tools and technologies for computer-aided speech and language therapy. Speech Communication. 2009;51(10):948-67. [DOI:10.1016/j.specom.2009.04.006]
81. Yamada Y, Javkin H, Youdelman K. Assistive speech technology for persons with speech impairments. speech communication. 2000;30(2):179-87. [DOI:10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00039-4]
82. Moreno J, Saldaña D. Use of a computer-assisted program to improve metacognition in persons with severe intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2005;26(4):341-57. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.07.005]
83. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Alberti G, Oliva D, et al. Post-coma persons with extensive multiple disabilities use microswitch technology to access selected stimulus events or operate a radio device. Research in developmental disabilities. 2011;32(5):1638-45. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.016]
84. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Oliva D, Cingolani E. Students with multiple disabilities using technology-based programs to choose and access stimulus events alone or with caregiver participation. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2009;30(4):689-701. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2008.09.002]
85. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Alberti G, Oliva D, et al. A technology-aided stimulus choice program for two adults with multiple disabilities: Choice responses and mood. Research in developmental disabilities. 2011;32(6):2602-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.06.015]
86. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, La Martire ML, Oliva D, et al. Technology-based programs to promote walking fluency or improve foot-ground contact during walking: Two case studies of adults with multiple disabilities. Research in developmental disabilities. 2012;33(1):111-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.08.029]
87. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Oliva D, D'Amico F. Technology-aided programs to enable persons with multiple disabilities to choose among environmental stimuli using a smile or a tongue response. Research in developmental disabilities. 2013;34(11):4232-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.003]
88. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Alberti G, Perilli V, et al. People with multiple disabilities learn to engage in occupation and work activities with the support of technology-aided programs. Research in developmental disabilities. 2014;35(6):1264-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.026]
89. Lewis RB, Lewis RB. Assistive technology and learning disabilities: Today's realities and tomorrow's promises. Journal of learning disabilities. 1998;31(1):16-26. [DOI:10.1177/002221949803100103]
90. NCSE. supporting Students with Special Educational Needs in Schools: NCSE Policy Advice Paper. National Council for Special Education. 2013;4.
91. Petty RE. Technology Access in the Workplace and Higher Education for Persons with Visual Impairments. 2005.
92. Wynne R, McAnaney,D., MacKeogh,T., Stapleton,P., Delaney,S., Dowling,N., & Isabelle Jeffares. Assistive Technology/Equipment in Supporting the Education of Children with Special Educational Needs -What Works Best? : NCSE; 2016.
93. Martin SS. Special education, technology, and teacher education. Special Education Technology Practice. 2006;2(1):21-36.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
