A recent trend in the fields of special education, rehabilitation, and technology is the development and implementation of assistive technology (AT) devices and services to assist individuals in compensating for disabilities and/or utilizing functional capabilities to meet environmental demands. AT devices and services have major implications for individuals with learning disabilities (LD) regarding life span issues, environmental and curricular accessibility, and compensatory strategies. Faculty members in higher education who are responsible for designing teacher preparation programs in LD must explore ways to structure curricula, methodologies, and practica to better prepare teachers to work with students who use AT devices to compensate for their specific learning disabilities. The purpose of this article is to describe curriculum design steps and barriers to and solutions for infusing LD teacher preparation programs with assistive technology.

One of the goals of any teacher preparation program is to provide an educational curriculum that reflects research-based "best practice" and is compatible with public education trends and philosophies. A current trend in the fields of special education, rehabilitation, and technology is to train individuals with disabilities in the use of assistive technology (AT) devices and services to compensate for their disabilities and/or utilize their functional abilities to meet environmental demands. The impetus for this assistive technology training trend stems from the passage of federal legislation such as the 1992 Amendments of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1994 (known as the Tech Act), which mandate accessibility and accommodations for individuals with disabilities to promote integration and full participation in society.

Probably one of the most influential and potentially beneficial laws is the Tech Act, which supports the development of programs that will ensure access to appropriate assistive technology devices and services for individuals with disabilities and their families. The Tech Act defines assistive technology device 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 functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities," and services as "any service that directly assists an individual with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology service" (p. 102, Stat., 1046). "Devices" encompass low technology (e.g., reachers, pencil grips, zipper pulls) and high technology (e.g., alternate computer keyboards, speech synthesizers, scanners); "services" include assessment, interagency coordination efforts, and training.

For individuals with learning disabilities (LD), who exhibit a variety and range (i.e., mild to severe) of learning and behavioral characteristics across the lifespan, of assistive technologies look promising. Assistive technology devices and services have major implications regarding lifespan issues and environmental and curricular accessibility. AT devices could be used to facilitate acquisition of academic, vocational, and daily living skills, and instruction in computer technology and written communication, to help students compensate for specific learning disabilities (Church & Glennen, 1992; Raskind, 1993). For example, most students with learning disabilities exhibit some type of reading problem. In some cases, scanning the text and using a voice synthesizer to read material may be quite appropriate so students can access the reading material more easily and thus focus more on comprehending rather than decoding the material. Other students with LD may exhibit problems with fine-motor skills and thus have difficulties using standard keyboards to access word processing programs on the classroom computer. For these youngsters, a variety of alternative keyboard options exist that offer different ways to create their stories.

Training individuals with LD and their families in assistive technology devices and services has ramifications for teacher preparation programs. As more students with LD in general and special education settings are identified as needing assistive technology devices and services, teacher preparation programs will have to address training issues and identify ways to infuse their curriculum with assistive technologies. Faculty members in higher education who are responsible for designing teacher preparation programs in LD must explore ways to structure curricula, methodologies, and practica to better prepare teachers to work effectively with students who use AT devices. The purpose of this article is to describe (a) curriculum design steps and (b) barriers to and solutions for incorporating assistive technology into learning disabilities teacher preparation programs.

Armstrong (1989) defined curriculum as a plan for the selection and organization of student experiences to change and develop behaviors. We have identified five steps for developing a preservice teacher preparation assistive technology curriculum, based on Taba's (cited in Wiles & Bondi, 1993) curriculum design model. We chose this model because of its emphasis on addressing rationales, competencies, content development, creative learning experiences, and program evaluation. Following is a description of the five curriculum design steps: (a) determining the need, (b) establishing teacher competencies and objectives, (c) identifying the curriculum, (d) organizing the curriculum and learning experiences, and (e) evaluating the effectiveness of the curriculum.

Determining the Need

In determining the need for a new curriculum, instructors should examine current educational trends and research. Educational trends and research will be examined briefly to determine how they influence the decision to implement an AT curriculum.

Educational Trends. The initiation of inclusive settings, whereby students with LD spend most, if not all, of their day in the general education setting, is certainly a controversial educational trend (Bateman, 1994; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Hallahan & Kauffman, 1994), one consequence of which is that general and special education teachers will have to demonstrate competencies with various devices. For instance, general educators in inclusive settings may be challenged to broaden their knowledge of technology to accommodate the special needs of learners in their classrooms, or learning disabilities teachers might be asked to assist the classroom teacher in helping a child who is using an AT device become part of an instructional group. Preservice general and special educators should be trained in assistive technology devices, particularly as more and more youngsters with disabilities are placed in general education settings for longer portions of the day.

A second trend is the pervasiveness of computers in classrooms. Educators are expected not only to set up the computer hardware but also to decide how to fit the technology into the instructional program (Lewis, 1993). Educators must be prepared for (a) setting up hardware, (b) identifying the variety of roles computer technology can serve in the classroom, and (c) adapting computer technology to make it accessible for students with LD.

A third trend is the increase in different types of educational software and multimedia applications (e.g., hypermedia, CD-ROM) that exist in most schools. Educators must be able to evaluate the components, strengths, and weaknesses of software and multimedia, and to match student abilities accordingly. For example, in some cases, a software requires reading skills even though the software purports to address another academic area, such as mathematics (Lewis, 1993). Other software may possess various stimuli that could be confusing and distracting to students with LD. Educators must be able to (a) identify prerequisite academic skills in software programs, and (b) make appropriate accommodations, such as the utilization of recorded instructions or the use of peer tutoring.

Research. Results from research studies is another factor to examine in support of the development of an assistive technology curriculum for a teacher preparation program. Although research in this area is mostly anecdotal in nature and the number of controlled studies in AT and LD is limited, research findings are beginning to emerge that validate and demonstrate the benefits of assistive technology as compensatory devices for students with LD. Specifically, research results have supported the use of a particular assistive technology (i.e., computerized speech feedback/speech synthesis) across school-age and postsecondary students in promoting proficiency in reading (Jones, Torgesen, & Sexton, 1987; Roth & Beck, 1987) and writing (Raskind & Higgins, 1995). Although continued validation research is warranted, results from these studies support the notion of AT as part of a teacher preparation program.

Considerable technology research in learning disabilities has focused primarily on the use of computer technology to remediate or supplement instruction (Raskind, 1993). Although in some cases research findings have been equivocal, some notable progress has been made in validating the efficacy of computer-based instruction and identifying software programs and applications as effective tools to supplement and reinforce instructional practices (Higgins & Boone, 1990; MacArthur, 1994; Olson, Foltz, & Wise, 1986; Torgesen, Waters, Cohen, & Torgesen, 1988). Such research has provided instructors with valuable information regarding word processing programs, hypermedia, and specific software packages; however, research studies examining the efficacy of various types of assistive technology devices to help students compensate for specific learning disabilities must continue. Such research agenda must be developed in the field. The results of this research are important; they could provide continued evidence of the need to train preservice teachers in a variety of AT compensatory devices for students with learning disabilities. Additionally, findings from this research could further validate the AT curriculum as beneficial for students with LD.

In summary, educational trends and research results should be examined to determine the extent to which there is a need for an assistive technology curriculum. This information can be coupled with information about the benefits of the curriculum for students with learning disabilities and about the influences of key pieces of legislation to determine whether or not a need exists for the new curriculum.

Establishing Teacher Competencies and Objectives

The second step in curriculum design is to delineate the competencies and objectives in assistive technology that will be important for teachers of students with LD to achieve in a teacher preparation program. Instructors can identify teacher competencies by conducting surveys of consumer groups of AT devices and services; collaborating with professionals (e.g., rehabilitation counselors, physical therapists, occupational therapists) who work extensively in AT service delivery; talking with public school, postsecondary, and vocational professionals who provide services to individuals with LD across the life span; talking with technology professionals in state departments of education; and reviewing published competency lists (e.g., developed by professional organizations). For example, in our special education teacher preparation program at The University of Texas, we examined competencies (a) stated on syllabi that were gathered from various professors who are teaching technology courses, (b) identified by technology personnel in the local school district, and (c) recommended by professional organizations. These competencies were reviewed and designated for specific courses being taught or developed by faculty who were interested in assistive technology as a component of their curriculum. A sample list of teacher competencies is provided in Table 1. The competencies include the development of knowledge and skill in the areas of computer literacy; general technology (e.g., issues, barriers and solutions); laws; learner needs; devices and services; curricular integration; environment; resources; partnerships; and evaluation. These competencies are based on recommendations by the Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children (Graves et al., 1992) and the International Society for Technology in Education (1992) for teacher preparation programs' technology instruction.

Once the requisite teacher competencies are identified, instructors can generate objectives that are used to construct course content and learning experiences. The objectives are linked directly to the teacher competencies and become the basis for the ensuing steps in the curriculum design model. The teacher competencies represent levels teachers should have attained by graduation from the teacher preparation program, and the objectives are skills needed to reach or master those competencies. The following questions can be used to develop related objectives: What skills should teachers possess to reach a competency level? What is the curriculum content for each skill? What learning experiences are necessary for teachers to reach particular competency levels? What skills should be taught that will still be relevant upon graduation (an important question to consider with assistive technology)? Table 2 provides a sample of one teacher competency, with related objectives.

Identifying the Curriculum

The third step of curriculum design involves identifying the curriculum, which is based on the competencies and objectives previously developed. The identification of an assistive technology curriculum for a teachertraining program in learning disabilities is based on the assumption that teachers should develop knowledge of and skill with various types of assistive technology devices and services that help students compensate for specific disabilities, and know where additional information, resources, and assistance can be obtained. Educators of students with LD should possess a broad knowledge base from which generalizations about the implementation of specific assistive technology devices can be made. Elements of such a knowledge base would include assessment practices, ways in which assistive technology devices can help students compensate for specific learning disabilities, lifespan issues (e.g., funding sources for AT devices, use of AT in postsecondary settings, access to home computers), input and output devices that promote accessibility, collaborative efforts with families and other professionals, and incorporation of devices into the instructional setting (i.e., the general or special education classroom). Table 3 lists areas and examples of curricula from which specific courses could be developed or content could be integrated into already existing learning disabilities courses.

Organizing the Curriculum and Learning Experiences

Once the curriculum is identified, step four involves organizing it and creating learning experiences by developing new courses and/or integrating the new curriculum into existing course structures. The availability of state certification or endorsement areas in assistive technology may influence the direction many instructors will pursue in organizing an AT curriculum for their current teacher-training program. Also, consideration must be given to providing training opportunities for preservice educators in general as well as special education. Two such organizational possibilities, and the associated learning experiences, are now described.

Developing Courses. Instructors may choose to create new assistive technology courses that students who are majoring in special or general education could take to supplement other coursework. These courses could correspond to state endorsement requirements in assistive technology, if such an option exists. Courses could provide a comprehensive overview of assistive technology and a skill-building interactive approach for teaching preservice educators ways in which assistive technology can be used in classroom, vocational, and postsecondary settings. Depending on teacher competencies, objectives, and curricula, courses might include Introduction to Assistive Technology, Curricular Integration of Assistive Technology, and an Internship in Assistive Technology.

A variety of learning experiences could be planned from which students would develop knowledge and skill in course objectives. The Introduction to Assistive Technology course and the Curricular Integration of Assistive Technology course could involve laboratory work, observations, and interagency partnerships. For example, site agreements could be arranged with various agencies that work with clients who use AT devices (e.g., rehabilitation centers, public schools, schools for individuals with sensory disabilities), allowing students opportunities to observe and document uses of AT devices, interactions between agency personnel and clients, the integration of AT devices into different settings, and client interactions with devices and the environment. If laboratory settings containing various assistive devices are available, then students could tour the facilities, observe demonstrations of hardware and software, interact with the devices and hardware, document their findings (such as purpose of the device, how it is used, how it promotes accessibility, cost), and share their information with other students in class. Another use of laboratory settings might involve using hardware and software to complete course assignments. Students could develop lessons demonstrating how they would teach youngsters to use AT devices, such as aword-prediction program or a speakand-spell instrument, and then design lessons that demonstrated an instructional objective, a teaching activity, and use of the AT device. The purpose of these tasks would be to provide skillbuilding opportunities for students to interact with hardware and software.

An Internship in Assistive Technology could be another valuable opportunity for students to learn firsthand about the many uses of assistive technology and the services that are available to link clients with devices and funding resources. Different settings might be identified to which students would be assigned for a designated time period, for instance, public school classrooms, university or community college offices for students with disabilities, rehabilitation centers, and schools for individuals with sensory disabilities. At these various sites, students might be assigned to serve in a variety of roles, such as working oneon-one with children or clients, teaching small-group activities, working in laboratory settings to assist adults with postsecondary assignments, working as assistants, and so forth.

Preservice teachers should have opportunities to work with master teachers who have demonstrated effective practices of infusing classroom instruction with AT. Internships should include participation in staffing committees that make AT decisions, collaboration with other professionals and families, and participation in transition team meetings. These experiences could assist preservice teachers in developing a comprehensive understanding of how AT devices are used by students and how professionals work effectively with youngsters to promote accessibility to instruction.

The common thread is that, in each instance, students are actively engaged in natural settings with children or clients who use assistive technology devices and services to accomplish tasks. Although the logistics (e.g., identifying sites; establishing roles for students, personnel at the sites, and university instructors; developing flexible scheduling options; dealing with liability issues) of establishing internships might be cumbersome at first, (a) these internships prove mutually beneficial for preservice teachers and agency personnel, (b) students learn about assistive technology from firsthand experiences in a variety of settings, and (c) agency personnel gain additional assistance at a time when extra staff and resources may be dwindling or limited.

Integrating Curricula Into Existing Courses. A second approach to assistive technology instruction focuses on integrating the AT curriculum into appropriate existing courses. The advantage of this approach is that the connection between assistive technology devices and services and educational programming for individuals with LD becomes apparent. The disadvantage is that instructors will have to make decisions about content that must be excluded so the new AT curriculum can be incorporated. And, as Bruder (1989) noted, the time required to cover the scope of (assistive) technology content can be a barrier to incorporating technology curricula into current teacher training programs.

In most teacher preparation programs that focus on developing competencies in learning disabilities, there are core courses that students must take and in which an assistive technology curriculum could be integrated.

For example, an introductory course covering legislation that affects individuals with disabilities could include a discussion about the Tech Act, in addition to discussions about other laws, such as IDEA, the Rehabilitation Acts, and ADA. The inclusion of technology wording in the 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments, the allusion to technology devices and services in ADA, and the passage of a law devoted entirely to technology (the Tech Act) clearly signify the importance placed on the potential benefits of AT for individuals with disabilities, which warrants discussion as a part of any legislative curriculum in an introductory course.

Assessment courses are another example of where an assistive technology curriculum might be included. Typically, in assessment courses, discussions cover the roles of various professionals in the assessment process; the types of data collected on individual students and clients; the types of assessment instruments used; the ecological nature of assessment; issues pertaining to reliability and validity; the interpretation of test resuits; and resultant IEP goals, objectives, and educational programming. Also, practical experiences with administering and interpreting tests might be included in the course. Assessment procedures and issues pertaining to assistive technology could be easily integrated into this type of curriculum. For instance, discussions about the assessment roles of various professionals, such as the speech and language pathologist and occupational therapist, could be extended to include assessing clients' strengths and weaknesses and potential matches to AT devices. As part of the assessment process, preservice teachers could learn about various factors that might affect assistive technology assessments and interventions. Church and Glennen (1992) discussed cognitive and motor factors that must be considered when making matches between individual needs and AT devices. For instance, individuals with memory deficits may have difficulties with remembering directions, following multistep operations, spelling, or computing basic math facts. Other problems might include reading difficulties and fine-motor coordination. Preservice teachers would learn how professionals who are engaged in a multidisciplinary assessment of an individual ascertain not only appropriate educational interventions, but also the role that assistive technology could play in helping the individual compensate for his or her specific disabilities.

Various professionals, or an assessment team, could be invited to class to discuss the types of data collected, clinical observation techniques employed, and instruments administered to develop a profile of a child or client who is a potential candidate for assistive technology devices. Additionally, this team might address some of the issues pertaining to reliability and validity when matching individual needs to devices, and to ways in which devices and services are addressed on Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs), Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and Individualized Transition Plans (ITPs).

Methods courses are a third area in which an assistive technology curriculum could be integrated. Methods courses pertaining to learning disabilities usually are structured according to academic content areas and include element,; of instructional and curricular design. Because curricular and instructional integration of assistive technology devices is such an important topic, infusing a methodology class with this information seems like a logical plan. The curricular elements listed under "Devices and Services" in Table 3 could be easily integrated into a methodology class that addresses interventions for specific academic areas. For instance, as a part of reading methodology, instructors could discuss or demonstrate AT devices that could help students compensate for reading disabilities.

Another example might be the incorporation of assistive technology devices into written expression methodology discussions. For example, the speak-and-spell instrument is a good example of a medium-tech device that corrects faulty spelling, is portable, and helps students with spelling problems move beyond this type of written language impediment. Students would learn not only about various remedial and strategic interventions for teaching written expression but also about AT devices that could be used to help children overcome spelling problems, for instance, and focus more on the substance of the written product.

Learning experiences in methods classes might include evaluating software and multimedia (e.g., CD-ROMs) that purport to assist children with specific problems; working with youngsters who use AT to compensate for various academic problems; and designing lessons in which the use of assistive technology is tailored to individual learning needs. Case studies could be used to promote skill in analyzing the functional abilities of the student involved, identifying AT devices that could be used to compensate for a learning disability, identifying environmental arrangements, and planning small-group lessons that integrate the devices. Videos of individuals using AT devices in different settings (e.g., classroom, job site) could be presented, whereby students would be asked to describe how the devices help individuals compensate for disabilities, how they are integrated into various settings, and what barriers are overcome by using them.

Two examples of ways to incorporate assistive technology into teacher preparation programs were presented. Certainly, other options exist, and their use will depend on each institution's teacher preparation program structure, certification areas, and intra- and interdepartmental collaboration. Training should be available for special and general preservice educators in the form of specific courses on assistive technology and/or existing courses that integrate technologies into the curriculum. Finally, the curriculum should be evaluated to determine its effectiveness in developing teacher competencies in the application of assistive technologies with individuals who have learning (and other) disabilities.

The final step in curriculum design is determining the effectiveness of the curriculum and learning experiences in promoting mastery of objectives and teacher competencies in AT. The major questions in this step of curriculum design are as follows:

1. Are preservice teachers mastering teacher competencies in assistive technology?
2. Is the AT curriculum affecting ways in which teachers work with students who use assistive technologies to compensate for learning disabilities?
3. Is the AT curriculum relevant and valid for achieving the desired outcome of students' being able to use assistive technologies to compensate for specific learning disabilities in various environmental settings?

Question 1 relates to the degree to which preservice teachers master assistive technology objectives and the competencies designated for AT courses or for courses in which AT content is integrated. Mastery of objectives can be measured in typical formats, such as course assignments, class discussion, examinations, and field-based experiences.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the assistive technology curriculum in a teacher preparation program, answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be sought. These answers can be obtained in several ways. First, instructors can collaborate with public school personnel to determine the degree to which teachers are capable of assessing the need for AT, integrating AT, and evaluating the effects of AT. The development of university and public school partnerships in designing and evaluating assistive technology curricula will go a long way toward establishing a relevant and valid AT teacher preparation program. Second, instructors can link with rehabilitation counselors or centers and colleagues to investigate current technological developments and the ways in which those developments benefit individuals with learning disabilities, which should assist instructors in assessing the relevancy of their AT curriculum.

As assistive technology developments take place and research findings on the effects of these technologies on one's ability to compensate for learning disabilities emerge, teacher preparation curricula will need to be reevaluated and modified. University and agency partnerships can help instructors maintain an updated AT curriculum and include learning experiences that will promote mastery of teacher competencies.

If preservice teachers are to become competent in the use of assistive technologies in instruction, (a) students and faculty must have access to the assistive technology hardware and software, (b) faculty should be comfortable with use of the assistive technologies in their courses, and (c) adequate resources are available to support training endeavors. A number of barriers may be encountered in the incorporation of assistive technology into a teacher preparation program; we now discuss barriers that we have encountered in our own efforts (Resta, 1993). Undoubtedly, there are many other barriers; we have chosen to discuss only those with which we are familiar, and to offer solutions based on our experiences. The following section discusses barriers and suggests some possible solutions.

Barriers

The development of an assistive technology component for a teacher preparation program involves time, commitment, and resources. Faculty members may be devoted to such an undertaking yet lack the resources and support necessary for achieving a comprehensive teacher preparation component. Three barriers in particular impede faculty's ability to provide the types of training necessary to prepare teachers of students with LD to work effectively with assistive technologies: access to technology, limited faculty development opportunities, and lack of incentives.

Limited Access to Technology. Paradoxically, faculty and students in teacher preparation programs often have less access to technology than is available to students in public schools. Contributing to this problem is the limited equipment funding allocated to many colleges and departments of education. It is not unusual for colleges of education to be at the bottom of the university equipment funding priority list--despite the fact that, in many instances, the college of education generates the largest student credit-hour production (and therefore funding) for the university. In addition, the state formula for education professional development programs may be underfunded compared to other professional development programs (e.g., business, nursing, law) and/or underbudgeted compared to other programs within the college or university (Resta, 1993).

Limited Faculty Development Opportunities. Another challenge of integrating assistive technologies in the preservice program is the lack of faculty training and technical support within many colleges of education. Faculty need time and technical support to explore the new assistive technology devices and software programs, and to develop competencies in infusing instruction with the devices and programs. Special departmental, college, or university-based resource and support centers are needed to help provide these services; in turn, the establishment of such centers requires adequate funding.

Lack of Faculty Incentives. There are often few incentives for faculty to infuse assistive technologies into the preservice curriculum (U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). Efforts by individual faculty members to integrate assistive technology into courses typically are not valued or considered important by the college and university administration when making merit, promotion, and tenure decisions. Also, course release time may not be available for those who contribute significant amounts of time to the development of lab facilities and new curricular development. Consequently, there is little reason for faculty members to make a major investment of their time in attempting to infuse their teacher preparation courses with AT. It is clear that faculty efforts in the infusion of assistive technologies must be recognized and rewarded by the system.

Solutions

Overcoming barriers to the incorporation of assistive technologies into teacher preparation programs requires that the faculty use a number of strategies to increase levels of understanding and commitment by the college and university administration, as well as by the state commission for higher education and the legislature. In particular, obtaining funding for assistive technologies is a challenging task during this time of increased demand and diminishing financial resources in higher education. Following are possible strategies and solutions for overcoming the identified barriers.

Development of a Technology Plan. The development of a comprehensive technology plan that documents the need for assistive technologies in the teacher preparation program is a good beginning. This plan should clearly define program objectives, identify the role that technology will play in the program, and identify the specific hardware/software/ facility requirements for the program. The technology plan also should include a description of the tasks and timelines for accomplishing the plan, including provisions for faculty training and technical support. Whenever possible, the plan should be integrated into college-wide or university planning efforts.

The first step in developing a plan is to identify strategies, goals, and objectives, and the second step is to develop a plan of action. An example of a technology plan is provided in Table 4, and the accompanying plan of action is shown in Table 5. This particular plan is intended to address all program areas (e.g., general special education of which learning disabilities is a component, special education rehabilitation, developmental disabilities).

Field-Based Programs. The barrier of limited access to technology can be partially addressed via the establishment of field-based teacher education programs. Increasingly, a national trend is for colleges of education to implement field-based teacher education programs, commonly called Professional Development Schools (PDSs), that are housed at off-campus school sites. These field-based programs provide most of the professional development courses and clinical experiences at the off-campus site. The growing trend toward implementing PDSs provides an opportunity to base some components of the teacher preparation program at a school site where substantial assistive technology facilities are in place and staff have high levels of expertise. Potential sites include schools in large, urban districts with extensive assistive technology resources, facilities, and staff competent in their use, and regional schools or centers established by a consortium of small school districts to provide educational services to students with special needs.

The development of the field-based programs requires college faculty to develop the courses and field experiences in partnership with the collaborating school staff. This cooperative planning should ensure that the program meets required standards and provides mutual benefits to preservice students and faculty and to students and teachers in the participating schools.

Faculty Development. The college or university needs to recognize the importance of providing staff development for faculty in the use of the new assistive technologies. This can be accomplished via workshops conducted by faculty who are using assistive technologies in their courses. Other resources and sources of expertise for faculty development workshops are (a) teachers who effectively use assistive technologies with students who have learning and other disabilities, (b) experts from state and local agencies, and (c) vendors of assistive technology hardware and software.

In addition to staff development, there is also a need for one-on-one training and technical support to assist faculty in implementing the new technologies. This may be made available at the college or departmental level by personnel knowledgeable in the application of the specific assistive technologies and who are allocated time to provide the needed assistance. For example, The University of Texas at Austin's College of Education established the Learning Technology Center to help address these needs. The center manages and supports the college assistive technology laboratory, instructional computer labs, computer network system, and multimedia laboratory. It also provides group and oneon-one training and technical support for both faculty and students.

Faculty Incentives. Incentives are needed to encourage faculty to use the new technologies. Results from a recent survey of colleges of education underscore that incentives spur faculty to invest time in integrating technology into their instruction. Efforts should be made at the college and university levels to include as criteria for merit, promotion, and tenure the use of technology in instruction. In addition, the administration should recognize that it takes time for faculty to learn to use the hardware and software and to integrate assistive technologies into their courses. Release time should be provided by the college for faculty with well-defined plans for the redesign or development of new courses using assistive technology. Such incentives and resources can great]y accelerate the integration of assistive technologies into the preservice program.

Funding Resources. Obtaining adequate funding is an obvious solution to the barriers presented in this article. For example, appropriate funding could be used to purchase needed hardware and software, establish centers for faculty and support, and provide training opportunities. Typically, university administrations have limited funding available to address the many internal demands for resources. In order for the college or university administration to assign a higher priority t:o funding assistive technologies, they must become aware of local, state, and national trends in the use of assistive technology to enhance learning for individuals with disabilities. It is often useful to enlist the assistance of outside constituent organizations (e.g., parent groups, advocacy groups, public school technology personnel). It is also useful to initiate state-wide efforts to increase awareness by state education agency professionals, the commissioner of higher education, and legislators of the need for the integration of assistive technologies into existing preservice programs, and to take steps to increase support for such programs. Such efforts are best accomplished through the leadership and advocacy of a state professional association. Additionally, students expressing the need to be better prepared in technology might serve as an influential incentive for administrators to address funding issues more adequately (Resta, 1993).

Usually, the administration will give greater credence to a need if it is also expressed by influential organizations and agencies outside the institution. Thus, faculty may wish to enlist the assistance and advocacy of special education divisions of public schools, state rehabilitation departments, state or local professional associations, and state schools for individuals with disabilities. There are also external sources of funding that may be considered for the acquisition of assistive technology resources. At the national level, federal support for technology in colleges of education has been limited (U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). However, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has several grant programs that include the acquisition of technology in support of the proposed project objectives. Examples of grant programs (pending funding) that might be considered include the following:

• Special projects to develop and demonstrate new approaches for the preservice and inservice teacher training (U. S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, 1992);
• Technology, educational media, and materials to support projects to advance the availability, quality, use, and effectiveness of technology and media in the education of children and youth with disabilities;
• Research in the education of individuals with disabilities: fieldinitiated research grants that support applied research in education;
• Short-term and long-term training in undergraduate education in rehabilitative services;
• Experimental and innovative projects to develop new types of training programs and demonstrate their effectiveness, and to develop new methods of training rehabilitation personnel; and
• Programs to support the development, demonstration, evaluation, and dissemination of inservice training models to prepare personnel to serve infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities.

The faculty also should explore other funding resources that may exist from the state education or rehabilitation agencies, as well as a number of private funding sources. A review of The Foundation Directory (Foundation Center, 1994) or other sources of information related to foundation funding priorities is available in most university libraries and can be used to help make initial contacts with foundations or funding agencies. Faculty should first contact the foundation's program officer to explore potential interest in the proposed project by the foundation. If there is sufficient interest in the concept, a proposal (based on format requirements of the agency) may then be prepared and submitted to the funding agency. External funding can provide some of the resources needed for the acquisition of assistive technologies and their incorporation into the preservice program.

The use of assistive technology to promote curricular and environmental access for students with learning disabilities holds great promise. Research is emerging that demonstrates the effectiveness of various AT devices in helping individuals to compensate for specific learning disabilities and thus promote more curricular and instructional access for these youngsters (Higgins & Raskind, 1995). Federal legislation mandates access to AT devices for students with disabilities, and school district personnel must determine students' technology needs and address those needs in their IEPs. Certainly, the pervasive use of some AT devices, such as spell checkers, calculators, alternative keyboards, voice synthesizers, and scanners, necessitates the implementation of AT curricula in teacher preparation programs to develop the knowledge, skill, and application levels of teachers who work with students who would benefit from or already have access to devices and services. Although some barriers exist to infusing teacher preparation programs with an AT curriculum, instructors and administrators, if committed to this endeavor, can identify ways to overcome some of these barriers and secure the necessary funding and resources to accomplish the tasks.

Jane Erin is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation at the University of Arizona. Her research focuses on individuals with visual impairments, and she is the author of articles and book chapters in the field of vision. Robin Lock is an assistant professor in special education at Texas Tech University. Her research interests include instruction for children with learning disabilities, educating preservice teachers, and utilizing technology to enhance instruction for students with special needs in general education classrooms. James M. Allan is the instructional technology coordinator for the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. He has worked with assistive technology for all disabilities for 15 years. Paul E. Resta is a professor of instructional technology and director of the Learning Technology Center in the College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin. His research interests are in the areas of computer-supported collaborative learning environments and the use of telecommunications as a support system for teachers. Address: Diane Pedrotty Bryant, The University of Texas, Department of Special Education, College of Education, Austin, TX 78712.

TABLE 1

Suggested Teacher Competencies in Assistive Technology

A. Computer literacy skills

Capable of basic computer operations (e.g., running programs,
formatting disks, copying files) Identify computer components,
functions, and peripheral capabilities Possess state computer
literacy competencies

B. General knowledge

Knowledge of assistive technology devices and services and how
they can be used to promote accessibility
Knowledge of issues, barriers,and benefits of assistive technology
Knowledge of IEP and AT

C. Laws

Knowledge of federal legislation and state policies for identifying
and using assistive technology devices with individuals who have
disabilities

D. Learner needs

Knowledge of life span issues and the use of appropriate assistive
technology devices and services to address those issues
Ability to conduct functional analyses of learner needs and to
select appropriate adaptive and augmentative technologies

E. Devices and services

Knowledge of (a) types of high- and low-technology devices
             (b)various input and output devices
             (c) assistive technology services for individuals with

             disabilities
             (d) telecommunications systems
             (e) multimedia applications

F. Curricular integration

Knowledge and use of technological resources for instruction
Ability to integrate hardware and software into curricula
Ability to teach students to use input and output devices
Ability to use multimedia applications to facilitate learning

G. Environment

Ability to arrange the setting to facilitate the use of
assistive technology

H. Resources

Knowledge of funding to support the use of assistive technologies
Knowledge of professionals who can support the use of assistive
technologies
Knowledge of school district resources to support implementation of
assistive technologies

I. Partnerships

Ability to work collaboratively with professionals to promote
integration of assistive technologies into home and school use
Ability to assist colleagues in using technology to meet
teaching/learning objectives
Ability to work with families to facilitate implementation of
assistive technology devices in the home and school

J. Evaluation

Ability to evaluate instructional progress and effectiveness
of assistive technology devices

Note. From The DLD Competencies for Teachers of Students with
Learning Disabilities, by A. Graves, M. F. Landers, J. Lokerson, J.
Luchow, M. Horvath, and K. Garnett, 1992. Reston, VA: Division for
Learning Disabilities Council for Exceptional Children.

Copyright 1992 by CEC. Adapted with permission.

Teacher Competencies by H. F.
Thibodeaux III, In J. D. Lindsey (Ed.), Computers and exceptional
individuals. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

TABLE 2

Development of Objectives

Teacher competency

Knowledge of federal legislation and state policies for identifying
and using assistive
technology devices with individuals who have disabilities

Objectives

Students will explain pertinent federal legislation by stating the
purpose and potential benefits for individuals with disabilities.

Students will explain state policies by stating the purpose and
potential benefits for individuals with disabilities.

Students will describe how federal legislation and state policies
are being operationalized in their school districts.

Students will describe the barriers and possible solutions to
implementing federal legislation and state policies.

TABLE 3

Examples of Curricula

                   General knowledge

Laws associated with assistive technology: IDEA, ADA, Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act

Definition of assistive technology

Compensatory uses of assistive technology
Competencies or skills needed by students to use assistive
technology

Life span focus of assistive technology

                   Assessment and identification

Assessing functional abilities of students and matching assistive
technology devices accordingly

Planning for assistive technology needs in staffing committees

                 Curricular integration and instruction

Incorporation of technology into existing instruction

Use of computer-assisted instruction and computer-managed
instruction

Telecommunications and multimedia

                   Devices and services

Assistive technology for writing problems: spell checker, grammar
checker, word prediction, word processing, speech synthesis, speech
recognition, outliners, promoted writing, speech input

Assistive technology for reading problems: optical character
recognition systems, books on tape, speech synthesis

Assistive technology for math problems: calculators, tutorial
software, graphing software

Assistive technology for reasoning problems: computer-assisted
instruction

Assistive technology for organizational problems: calendar and
scheduling software, personal information manager, free-form
databases

Decisions regarding selection of appropriate technology
(transdisciplinary evaluation, software and hardware, context of
use, compatibility, ease of use, reliability, and cost are but a
few)

Keyboarding, touch typing, and the use of the mouse

Use of technology for access to information, including CD-ROMs,
online encyclopedias, newspapers, and other information

Life skills technology: bank teller machines, checkbook software,
and address-book software

Communicative devices: speech synthesizers, speech to print,
print to computers, scanners
Alternate keyboards: touch screen, switches, keyguard,
voice-activated

Software: tutorial, drill-and-practice, simulation

                   Collaborative partnerships

Working with families

Working with school professionals

Working with agency professionals

                          Funding and resources

Information regarding funding of assistive technology

Sources of more information on specific pieces of technology:
Trace Research and Development Center, Hyper-Abledata CD-ROM,
Closing the Gap Annual Resource Directory

TABLE 4

Sample Technology Plan: Strategies and Goals

                        Assistive Technology Plan

Strategy 1.0:     We will infuse undergraduate-level course
                  curricula with assistive
                  technology.

Goal (1.1):      Increase knowledge and competency
                 of assistive technology among all
                 special education undergraduate generic
                 certification seekers

Goal (1.2):      Increase knowledge of assistive
                 technology among all
                 general education
                 elementary and secondary certification
                 seekers

Strategy 2.0:    We will incorporate assistive
                 technology into
                 graduate level-course
                 curricula.

Goal (2.1):      Develop assistive, informational,
                 and instructional
                 technology course
                 competencies

Goal (2.2):      Work collaboratively with
                 special education (SED)
                 faculty to implement a
                 technology plan

Goal (2.3):      Begin teaching a graduate-level
                 course on assistive
                 technology in the
                 spring semester

Goal (2.4):      Require prerequisite
                 competencies (i.e., computer
                 literacy self-paced/
                 nongraded module or
                 comparable course) for
                 enrollment into the
                 assistive technology graduate course

Strategy 3.0:     We will establish, maintain,
                  and integrate a
                  Special Education Technology
                  Lab into the College of Education.

Goal (3.1):       Implement procedures to operate the lab

Goal (3.2):       Support undergraduate and
                  graduate assistive technology
                  instruction in
                  the College of Education (COE)

Strategy 4.0:      We will have SED faculty
                   who are computer
                   literate and knowledgeable in
                   assistive, informational,
                   and instructional
                   technology.

Goal (4.1):        Survey faculty to determine
                   their interest in
                   technology training

Goal (4.2):        Use technology to enhance
                   instruction for persons with
                   special needs

Goal (4.3):        Identify resources for
                   faculty training and involvement
                   in assistive technology

Strategy (5.0):    We will provide assistive
                   technology information
                   and services to COE
                   faculty as requested.

Goal (5.1):        Provide information to
                   faculty concerning technology
                   adaptations and
                   modifications for students with
                   disabilities

Goal (5.2):        Make available to COE faculty
                   assistive technology
                   instructional modules

Strategy 6.0       We will secure funding to
                   accomplish the strategies in
                   this plan.

Goal (6.1):        Identify financial, personnel,
                   and other resources
                   within the department,
                   COE, and university to fund
                   the technology
                   plan

Goal (6.2):        Write grants

TABLE 5

Sample Technology Action Plan

Project                  Activity description         Resources

Surveys               University of Texas students,
                      parents, teachers, public
                      school students with disabilities,
                      service center personnel, faculty,
                      TATP advisory group,
                      vocational/rehabilitation centers,
                      Texas Education Agency

                      Faculty: opinions on technology plan,
                      interest in integrating
                      technology into coursework,
                      interest in using technology, and
                      interest in training

Report on             Develop report that documents
survey results        results from various surveys,
                      to be made available to SED
                      faculty and others

Competencies          Prepare list of competencies
                      from survey
                      results for course infusion
                      or development:

                      Undergraduate competencies for AT:
                      SED
                      General education: secondary and elementary

                      Graduate competencies:
                      AT/informational/instructional
                      Prerequisite computer
                      literacy competencies

Courses               Undergraduate: Add AT
                      requirements to courses:
                      ALD 322, ALD 326,
                      SED 675, EDC 371

                      Graduate:
                      Develop course: SED 393
                     (syllabus, curricula, etc.)
                      Develop doctoral seminar

Modules               Topics
                      Technology knowledge for        Grant funding

                      general and special educators    Materials $
                      (introduction/field experiences),
                         basic skills
                    Low communicative competence
                    Sensory and motor disabilities
                    Basic skills
                    Overview/knowledge

                      Evaluation

SED Technology        Purchase, operate, and
                      maintain equipment
Lab
                      Procure ongoing technical support

                      Establish policies and procedures for use

                      Determine coordinator

                      Secure funding to continue lab

                      Hire personnel to staff lab

                      Use as field site for COE courses

SED faculty           Train faculty

                      Offer overview session/inform
                      faculty of current resources,
                      advances, etc.

                      Lobby for representative on
                      committee for technology/students
                      with disabilities

                      Participate in community,
                      conferences, TAM

COE faculty           Provide information about technology
                      adaptations and modifications
                      Make instructional modules available

Development of        Develop AT, instructional, and
technological         informational technology library
resources
                      Purchase hardware, software, AT,
                      videos, etc.

                      Become involved in Learning Technology
                      Center (interactive media)

                      Become involved in software
                      preview center

                      Become involved in telecomm./distance
                      learning

                      Become involved in public schools
                     (research)

                      Use agencies to establish
                      field experiences

Funding               Identify financial resources
                      to fund plan

Armstrong, D.G. (1989). Developing and documenting the curriculum. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bateman, B. (1994). Who, how and where: Special education's issues in perpetuity. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 509520.

Bruder, I. (1989). Future teachers: Are they prepared? Electronic Learning, 8(4), 3239.

Church, G., & Glennen, S. (1992). The handbook of assistive technology. San Diego: Singular.

Foundation Center. (1994).The foundation directory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.

Graves, A., Landers, M.F., Lokerson, J., Luchow, J., Horvath, M., & Garnett, K. (1992). The DLD competencies for teachers of students with learning disabilities. Reston, VA: Division for Learning Disabilities Council for Exceptional Children.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1994). Toward a culture of disability in the aftermath of Deno and Dunn. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 496-508.

Higgins, E.L., & Raskind, M.H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 159-174.

Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1990). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 529-540.

International Society for Technology in Education. (1992). NCATE approved curriculum guidelines for educational computing and technology. Eugene, OR: Author.

Jones, K. M., Torgesen, J. K., & Sexton, M. A. (1987). Using computer guided practice to increase decoding fluency in learning disabled children: A study using the Hint and Hunt I program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 122-128.

Lewis, R. B. (1993). Special education technology: Classroom applications. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

MacArthur, C. (1994). Beyond word processing: Computer support for writing processes. LD Forum, 19(1), 22-27.

Olson, R., Foltz, G., & Wise, B. (1986). Reading instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 18(2), 93-99.

Raskind, M. (1993). Assistive technology and adults with LD: A blueprint for exploration and advancement. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 185-196.

Raskind, M., & Higgins, E. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141-158.

Resta, P. E. (1993). Training: Preservice education. The Electronic School (special issue of the American School Board Journal).

Roth, S. F., & Beck, I. L. (1987). Theoretical and instructional implications of the assessment of two microcomputer word recognition programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 197-218.

Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. section 2201.

Thibodeaux, H.F., III. (1993). Teacher competencies. In J. D. Lindsey (Ed.), Computers and exceptional individuals (pp. 369374). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Torgesen, J. K., Waters, M.D., Cohen, A. L., & Torgesen, J. L. (1988). Improving sightword recognition skills in LD children: An evaluation of three computer program variations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11,125-132.

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1992). Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Fourteenth annual report to Congress. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education

Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1993). Curriculum development (4th ed.). New York: Merrill.

~~~~~~~~

By Diane Pedrotty Bryant, Jane Erin, Robin Lock, James M. Allan, and Paul E. Resta

Diane Pedrotty Bryant is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education at The University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Bryant serves as the coordinator for the Assistive and Instructional Technology Lab. Her research interests include instructional interventions and technology-related instruction for students with learning disabilities in general and special education settings.