Assistive Technology: Useful Tools to Help Us All

On
Advancing Student Achievement Through Technology
Computer-Using Educators, Inc.
Assistive
Technology
Useful Tools
Help Us All
Inside :
Differentiating Instruction
LAUSD Boosts
Curriculum Engagement
Center for Accessible Technology
Promotes Effective Use
The Bleeding Edge:
Technology and Special Needs
Winter 2006 | Vol. 28 | No. 4
Full Page Ad
Winter 2006 OnCUE
www.cue.org
winter 2006
John Russet (l to r), deaf/hard of hearing teachers
from Marlton School view new technologies.
mission
Contents
Below: Stephanie Johnson, Richard Kendall and
See story on page 10.
Bits and Bytes
Legislative Update ...............................................................18
OnCTAP.............................................................................19
Features
Differentiating Instruction: A Conceptual Framework............8
Sue Fellwock-Schaar, Ed.D.
LAUSD Boosts Curriculum Engagement
with Innovative Assistive Technology Program........................10
Caroline van Howe
Center for Accessible Technology Promotes Effective Use...........14
Looking Back: 23 Years of Assistive Technology by Dmitri Belser
When BAD is Good by Dmitri Belser
New Features in Naturally Speaking 9 by Jane Berliss-Vincent
Inspiration Options for Students with Disabilities by Jennifer McDonald-Peltier
Departments
Tech Coordination: Assistive Technology:
Not Just for Special Ed..........................................................12
Doug Prouty
Professional Development: Access for All Readers.......................13
Barbara Bray
Tips & Tricks: Getting By With a Little
Help From Your Computer Friends........................................16
Linda Oaks
The CUE Review.................................................................20
Sandra Burdick
CUE
CUE promotes and supports the
effective use of technology in the
educational community.
Editor
Sara Armstrong, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Layout
Kesler Communications
Contributing Writers
Barbara Bray, Brian Bridges, Sandra Burdick, Tim
Landeck, Doug Prouty, Linda Oaks, David Thornburg,
Chris York
Advertising
Paid advertising accepted in accordance with editorial policy.
For ad deadlines or additional information, please contact
CUE Inc., 387 17th Street, Suite 208, Oakland, CA 94612,
510.814.6630.
OnCUE journal (ISSN 0739-9553) is published and bulkmailed four times during the academic year by ComputerUsing Educators, Inc., and is one of the benefits of membership. Membership for CUE is $40/year, U.S. regular rate,
$30/year, U.S. student rate, and $20/year emeritus (retired
rate. Corporate memberships are available.
Entire contents Copyright 2006 by CUE, Inc., unless otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. To reprint articles that are
copyrighted by the author, you must contact the author for
permission. All other items may be reprinted for educational
use, but not for sale, with the provision that proper credit is
given to OnCUE and to the author, if any.
2006/2007 CUE, Inc. Board of Directors
Columns
Scott Smith, President
[email protected]
Jan Half, Vice President/Treasurer
[email protected]
UpFront: The Stories We Tell.................................................5
Debra White, Secretary
[email protected]
Sharon Sutton, Member at Large
[email protected]
Hall Davidson, Member at Large
[email protected]
Terry Faherty, Member
[email protected]
Steven Glyer, Member
[email protected]
Mike Lawrence
The Bleeding Edge: Technology and Special Needs..................7
David D. Thornburg, Ph.D.
CUE Information & Forms
Annual CUE Conference: Sharing the Summit .....................18
CUE Membership Application..............................................22
Calendar................................................................ Back Cover
Brian Bridges, Member
[email protected]
Barbara Keenoy, Member
[email protected]
Mike Lawrence, Executive Director
[email protected]
Computer-Using Educators, Inc.
387 17th Street, Suite 208
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone 510.814.6630 | Fax 510.444.4569
See us at CUE Annual Conference March 1 - 3 booth #401
Used on over half a million school computers, Clicker is
helping children of all abilities to achieve success. Over
twelve years, Clicker has become an essential tool for every
classroom, and with version 5, Clicker's unique combination
of talking word processor and Clicker Grids is even better!
With Clicker, children can write with whole words, phrases, and pictures by
clicking on cells in the Clicker Grid. By using sets of linked grids, students
can have access to an unlimited number of words and pictures that provide
a framework or scaffolding for their writing. As well as writing simple
documents, children of all ages can create multimedia talking books using
pictures, sounds, and even video.
O New natural speech – text is highlighted as it is
read out, helping students to relate each word
to its sounds
O New pop-up grids enable students of all abilities
to create talking books and engage in new
kinds of Clicker activities
O Search, browse, and open files from
LearningGrids.com within Clicker Explorer
O Even easier to use than Clicker 4, yet you can
use all your Clicker 4 knowledge and grids
O Fantastic savings on Additional User Licenses
when you upgrade
Winter 2006 OnCUE
www.cue.org
p r e s i d en t ' s
A
As we shared in our grant writing issue of
OnCUE last year, much of what we do as
educators is tell stories. Whether applying for
grant funding, teaching a concept to a group
of students, or presenting at the annual CUE
Conference—stories engage the mind and are
brilliant delivery mechanisms for complex and
powerful ideas.
I strongly believe that we often miss out on
some of the best stories involving technology
in the hands of students and teachers—assistive
technology! When I consider how many students who, thanks to technology, are now able
to connect with the curriculum, and I compare
this with 20 or even 10 years ago, I’m astonished! Look at the leaps and bounds that have
been made in this one specific area! And too
often, we are not telling these stories.
The Stories
We Tell
Sharing
stories of
achievement.
cuopl furmonn t by Mike Lawrence
Executive Director
[email protected]
CUE member Carol Anne McGuire teaches
blind and visually impaired K-6 students using
video editing, audio composition, and videoconferencing tools. Students share stories, make
music, trade recipes, and conduct experiments
from across the globe using these technologies.
They make powerful connections with each
other WHILE tackling required curriculum
standards. This would not be possible without
these technology tools, or an innovative,
daring teacher. For more information about
Carol Anne, and what she and her students are
doing this year, see the picture below and visit
<www.rockourworld.org>.
CUE member Sharon Eilts has developed a website that discusses universal design for learning
supported with assistive technology (<homepage.mac.com/seilts/udl_at/index.html>). Sharon
describes three areas that must be considered for
assistive technology interventions to be effective:
• External elements—any item, equipment, product, system, or service used to
increase, maintain, or improve functional
capabilities of people with disabilities.
• The human factor—the person with the
disability and his or her abilities to use
anything listed above.
• Environmental considerations—the context
in which the individual will need support,
including the setting, the cultural framework of the individual, and the physical
framework of the environment.
Continued on pg 17
www.cue.org
Winter 2006 OnCUE
Winter 2006 OnCUE
www.cue.org
Th e
bl e e d i n g
e dge
by David D. Thornburg, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Technology and
Special Needs
W
When I was first told about the theme for this
issue of OnCUE, I gave a lot of thought to
what I might say. I’ve decided to share a personal story to illustrate how today’s technology
can make a difference for children with special
needs. Because I only recently shared this
story in public at NECC, I think it is time for
my friends at CUE to know something about
me—something that happened back in the late
1940’s that I will remember forever.
School was
a living hell for
me, but it
need not be
that way for
the children
of today.
I strongly believe
that ALL
children benefit
when modern
telematic tools
are placed at
their disposal.
When I was a child, there was
a belief that children should be
taught to write with their right
hand. This attempt at forced
conformity with the norm was
reflected in desk design that
clearly favored right-handed kids.
As it turns out, I was left-handed. In addition to this “defect,”
I had a hard time learning to
write clearly, no matter how hard
I practiced drawing letter shapes
over pre-printed templates. One
of my teachers decided to “fix”
my problem by securing my left
hand to my side with my belt,
forcing me to write with my
right hand.
This did not work, and the result
was that I became ambidextrously dysgraphic—I couldn’t write clearly with either hand. In
fact, writing by hand was physically painful to me. My deathgrip on the pencil didn’t help, and my body contortions while
writing drew unwanted attention.
And then, at the age of eight, I had an accident that immobilized my right arm. Because of the various surgeries involved
in the repair of this arm, I missed one term in school. On my
www.cue.org
return, my handwriting had not improved (even though I was
now allowed to use my left hand), and I became even more of
a challenge to my teachers. The school counselor tested me
and announced that I was mildly mentally retarded and that
my parents should make sure I was trained for a trade.
My fortunes started to change on entering Lane Technical
High School in Chicago, a trade school that also had a college
prep program. I started in the trades, and then moved into the
college prep program and the result was splendid. (On receiving my Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, I tried to track
down the counselor who had labeled me “retarded,” but she
was nowhere to be found.)
Those of you who have heard me speak at the CUE conference now probably understand my deep passion for children,
and for the creative use of modern technology. When I was in
school, there were no word processors, no graphics programs,
no multimedia. We did have a 16mm projector and I was
one of the few who knew how to thread and run the machine,
placing me in some demand at the time.
If I had access to a word processor, a graphics program, and
the other tools most of us have in our homes today, I would
have been in great shape. Unfortunately, none of these tools
existed when I was in school.
The reason I share this
personal story with you
is that every classroom
has at least one child
who, for whatever
reason, has problems
with some mechanical or cognitive task.
Modern technology
can do a lot to help
the learner overcome
Continued on pg 17
Winter 2006 OnCUE
featu r e
By Sue A. Fellwock-Schaar, Ed.D.
[email protected]
Differentiating Instruction:
A Conceptual
Framework
D
“Differentiate instruction to meet the needs
of all learners.” We hear that sentence over
and over and it does make sense that it will
help create universal access for students,
but it can seem like an overwhelming task
unless we break it into manageable chunks.
The conceptual framework provided here is
intended to make this nebulous task more
concrete so that differentiation can become a daily occurrence in
the classroom, one that is manageable and documentable.
The term “curriculum” comes from the Latin word “currere”
meaning “a course to be run,” or “a path to be traversed.” The
“finish line” is, of course, mastery of the specified state and local
standards. Some students come to
the task able-bodied, wearing runModifying
ning shoes and with a canteen of
water strapped to their sides; others
content,
come with stubbed toes in plastic
process, and/or flip flops and no canteen; and still
product is the others come with sprained ankles, sitting in wheelchairs. Some can easily
core of
read the map and listen to directions
providing
in English, and others are making
differentiated beginning steps into what for them
is a new language. As a teacher, it is
instruction.
my responsibility to see that all of my
students traverse a path to the standards in a timely way, developing all
the knowledge, skills, and positive attitudes that they can. In many
cases, because of pacing plans and state testing, my responsibility
includes ensuring that they all to get to the finish line at about the
same time, regardless of their sprains and bruises or lack of equipment. It is differentiating instruction that allows me the possibility
to design an appropriately challenging path for each student to get
to the goal. My responsibility is to see that this happens, as efficiently, effectively, and deeply as possible.
In order to be the best coach possible, preassessment of knowledge, skills, and attitudes is essential. Cognitive preassessments
help me to determine the knowledge that individual students
Winter 2006 OnCUE
already
have,
preferably
addressing all
of the subskills in that
unit. Readiness
for content can
be determined
by looking at prior
post assessments, prior
products, having conversations with students about the topic,
observing the student dealing with the content, etc. The important thing is that I understand what Yesinia has already mastered
and what she needs to get to the end of the journey. Equally
important, however, are affective preconditions for each student.
By using affective preassessments such as interest surveys and
learning modality preference inventories, I can find effective
ways to guide student learning while making it appealing to individuals. By combining the information from the cognitive and
affective preassessments, I can determine plans for flexible groupings (Castle, Deniz, & Tortora, 2005; Tieso, 2003) that enable
students to be at the appropriate level of difficulty while incorporating ways to make the content meaningful and appealing.
Preassessment should not be used as a way to prejudge how well
students will master the standards; rather, it should provide me
with clues as I design the student’s particular path to reach them.
Modifying Content, Process, and/or Product is the core of providing differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 1999). If the content of a unit has been divided into subtopics and subskills and
students have been adequately preassessed, designing instruction
at various levels of complexity becomes more straightforward.
Modifying process can include adjusting one, two, or three
components of instruction: (1) Thinking skills (Tomlinson,
1999), (2) Research Skills (Tomlinson, 1999), and/or (3) Life
Skills (see Human Resources Development Canada, 2001; Jet
Propulsion Lab, n.d.). Thinking skills include such competencies
as those outlined in Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001; Bloom, 1956), the Hilda Taba Strategies (Joyce & Weil,
www.cue.org
fe at u re
1996; Taba, 1967), and Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity model
(California Department of Education and California Association
for the Gifted, 1994). While Arturo is analyzing the situation
from multiple perspectives, Alan is compiling a detailed list of
events that led up to the situation. Research skills can vary from
the simple to the complex: Natasha is using a hardcover encyclopedia to find information while Grace is interviewing her
grandmother on the same topic. Life Skills comprise the
many abilities that we need to function well independently,
interpersonally, and socially. By observing my students to
analyze their behaviors
and combining this information with that from
other preassessments, I
can scaffold instruction
in personal and social
skills for students and
place them in appropriate learning experiences
that will help them attain
these skills.
Products can vary according to individual preference, but it is my responsibility to make sure that
students can demonstrate
their learning in a variety
of ways. As we work through various kinds of products, my
students and I develop both general and specific rubrics (see
Marzano, Pickering, & McTighe, 1993) for each and post them
in a place for all students to see.
Modification of Instruction, Pace, and Resources are often useful in modifying Content, Process, and Product. I may choose
different design approaches for students who are at different levels
in their understanding of the topic or with different personal
skills and preferences, all the while making sure that all students
learn to work both independently and in groups. Instructional
management strategies can include options such as homogeneous
cooperative groups, independent study, dyads, contracts for learning, learning centers, and tiered assignments (Tomlinson, 1999).
Increasing Michael’s pace by moving him from the group practicing a skill to the group solving complex real-world problems
when he is ready is likely to increase his interest while providing
additional practice. Providing more complex materials to students
who are advanced readers and less complex materials to struggling
readers can be readily accomplished with the use of the Internet as
well as library books and other texts. Modifying Instruction, Pace,
www.cue.org
and Resources creates yet a deeper opportunity for modification of
Content, Process, and Product, thus creating a plethora of opportunities to meet the needs of individual students.
Differentiating instruction can be simple or complex, depending
on my readiness as a teacher to take on new challenges in getting
all students to the “finish line” of meeting the standards, regardless of the varied paths they take. The conceptual framework
offers teachers a menu from which to choose, advancing into
the deeper waters of differentiated instruction as they are ready.
Starting simply while developing classroom management
techniques to support differentiated instruction is important,
but starting is essential.
The able-bodied students wearing running shoes are given a
rockier, steeper path to increase
their agility and stamina. Those
with stubbed toes and ill-fitting
flip flops are given a flatter path
with fewer rocks and they learn
to carry a canteen to refresh
themselves, but their path is still
challenging. Those in wheelchairs have the most streamlined path, but they learn to use
their arms to self-propel and dodge the obstacles that are inevitable.
All students increase their orienteering skills and are given choices
and appropriate challenges along the way. By modifying Content,
Process, Product, Instruction, Pace, and Resources I can facilitate
the arrival of all students at the finish line in a timely manner,
equipping them with new knowledge, skills, and positive attitudes
along the way.
Sue A. Fellwock-Schaar, Ed.D. is an Associate Professor in the
College of Education at California State University, Dominguez
Hills. She has worked with public and private schools in the Los
Angeles metropolitan area for the past five years as a consultant for
GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) programs and as a
professional developer. She may be contacted at 310-243-3228
or [email protected].
This article first appeared in the Winter, 2006 edition of the
CASCD Journal (<www.cascd.org/pdfs/newsletterwinter2006.pdf >),
and is used with permission. Please visit <www.cue.org/oncue> for
the full article with sample strategies.
References on pg 21
Winter 2006 OnCUE
10
featur e
LAUSD Boosts
Curriculum: Engagement with
By Caroline van Howe
[email protected]
Innovative Assistive Technology Program
S
Special Education is in the news. With the
buzz around the recent opening of the Microsoft/Philadelphia School of the Future, the
role of assistive technology in Special Education classes is spotlighted. (Business Week
Online Sep 7, 2006). The Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) Division of Special
Education is engaged in a similar creative and
comprehensive undertaking in their new Special Schools Assistive
Technology Implementation Plan.
"My vision
was to have a
coordinated set
of technology
tools ..."
Raising the Bar
A major thrust within LAUSD Special
Education Division, headed by Associate Superintendent Donnalyn JaqueAntón, is providing exceptional educational opportunities to 4,000 plus
students with special needs and special
education (SPED) professionals.
Kate Brandon, Program Coordinator in the Instructional Initiatives
department with the SPED Division, was charged with developing
a comprehensive program for the 18 district Special Schools to raise
the bar for students and teachers, including unique approaches that
bring together technology and professional development.
Defining the Vision
Brandon, a 35-year veteran in
the district, explored a number
of different avenues before
settling on her adopted strategy. “My vision,” Brandon
explains, “was to have a coordinated set of technology
tools that would be flexible
enough to be customized for
individual student IEPs, be
aligned to the state educational
standards, and be easy for classroom teachers to use
Above:
on a daily basis. LookMiddle school student in Madison Elementary School
District., AZ, with vision impairments benefits from
ing back on it now, I
enlarged text, symbols, and touch sensitive keyboard
wanted a lot!”
with keyguard for guided access.
Winter 2006 OnCUE
Background Research: Looking for Success
Brandon became intrigued with a pioneering project she heard
about in Arizona. Sponsored by the Arizona Department of Education, it focused on helping students with severe and profound disabilities achieve success with the newly released Arizona Functional
Standards for Language Arts and Mathematics. The project was supported by a collaborative group including the Arizona DOE, a local
state-AT services provider agency, six Phoenix-based school districts,
and five assistive technology vendors.
LAUSD Special Schools Call Out
• 15 Special Schools for students with cognitive challenges
• 1 Special School for students with blind/low
vision challenges
• 1 Special School for students with deaf//hard of
hearing challenges
• 1 Special School for students transitioning between Home,
Hospital and School
• Over 4,000 students served in LAUSD Special Schools
Brandon headed a volunteer fact-finding mission to Arizona with
two district colleagues, Gloria Lopez, Director of Instructional
Initiatives, and Jody Molodow, Specialist in Instructional Initiatives.
“Going to Arizona and seeing and hearing firsthand of the extraordinary student and teacher successes was like a door opening wide,”
enthuses Brandon. She returned from Arizona and set about the
difficult task of making her dream real.
From Vision to Reality: A Long and Winding Road
Brandon worked closely with colleague Carol Casperson, AT Coordinating Specialist for the district in developing the plan. Casperson’s
prior experience leading a pilot project with selected district regular
education elementary schools was invaluable in establishing the right
set of equipment specifications, classroom set up, and professional
development strategies for the Special Schools.
Brandon devised a five-pronged approach:
1) Collaborative process in developing and refining a plan
2) Alignment to educational standards
3) Collaborative partnership/s with internal and external providers
www.cue.org
11
f e at u re
4) Structured implementation plan with “just-in-time” training
and email support
5) Focus on long-term sustainability and building local capacity
Brandon’s proposal, developed in collaboration with the principals
of all 18 Special Schools, Casperson, and selected assistive technology vendors, was approved for funding in record time. The
plan included:
1) A foundation set of assistive technology equipment
(1 set per 100 students):
- 1 instructor laptop
- 1 interactive whiteboard
- 1 LCD projector
- 1 alternative programmable keyboard 1
- 1 set of software tools to create supplemental curriculum
activities and associated alternative keyboard overlays 2
2) Classroom sets of specialized equipment purchased for
different school needs:
- Lower elementary grade supplemental reading program 3
- Braille overlays and activities for the Special School for the
Blind 4
- American Sign Language signing avatar activities for the
Special School for the Deaf 5
3) A year long professional development program for all
Special Schools educators:
- 1 day hands-on introduction
- Peer-to-peer follow-up study groups
- Online and email support
- Follow up hands-on workshop mid-term
- Specialized training for the Schools for the Blind and the Deaf
- Specialized training for elementary schools on MEville to
WEville, a language arts program
4) Technical Support by LAUSD Assistive Technology team
5) Alignment to California state standards—with an initial focus
on language arts
6) On-going monitoring and feedback provided by the Instructional Initiatives Coordinator
Getting Up to Speed
The project began with delivering all of the assistive technology
equipment to the Special Schools over the spring of 2006. Each
Special School principal determined his or her own implementation and training schedule in conjunction with the master schedule
coordinated by Brandon.
The project professional development plan began with a three-day
onsite in-service the week before school started. Brandon was keen
that the initial session set the tone for a successful staff development experience using a “just in time” approach.
Kim Miller, Assistant Principal of the Marlton School for the
Deaf, summed up a recent workshop for her staff on the assistive
technology software IntelliTools Classroom Suite and VCom3D’s
www.cue.org
American Sign Language (ASL)
signing avatars software as
“Phenomenal! Fantastic!” (Marlton School
serves 300 students
aged 3-22 who
are deaf and 100
hearing sibling
students in grades
K-5. The Marlton
staff of 37 teachers
includes 21 who are
deaf and 40 assistants,
four of whom are deaf.)
Miller went on to say,
“Some of the teachers literally
had tears in their eyes during the
workshop. This was the technology they had been waiting for!”
Above:
Elementary student in
Pendergast Elementary School
District, AZ, participates in an
interactive counting activity using
an interactive whiteboard.
Next Steps
“The project to align with the California and LAUSD functional
standards is underway and I’m delighted at the way the different
Special School personnel have risen to the challenge in such a
short space of time,” stated Brandon.
Brandon’s hope is that the LAUSD’s Special Education
Division will be a state and national leader showcasing
successful implementations of assistive technology for
students, teachers, and families.
Caroline van Howe is currently Director of Programs for the Assistive
Technology Industry (ATIA) where she is responsible for educational
programs, annual conference, and technical assistance for federally
funded AT programs. She believes that assistive technology has the
power to open doors for people with disabilities to communicate,
learn, work, and live independently.
Visit <www.cue.org> for the complete story.
Notes
1 IntelliKeys USB, from IntelliTools, Inc.:
<www.intellitools.com>
2 IntelliTools Classroom Suite and Overlay Maker 3,
from IntelliTools, Inc.
3 MEville to WEville, from AbleNet, Inc.:
<www.ablenetinc.com>
4 IntelliBraille, from Bruce McClanahan, based at
Washington State School for the Blind:
<store.intellitools.com/intellibraille.html>
5 ASL Animations Vols 1 & 2, from VCom3D:
<store.intellitools.com/aslanvo1.html>
Winter 2006 OnCUE
12
t e ch
c o o r d in at i on
Assistive
Technology:
by Doug Prouty
[email protected]
Not Just for Special Ed
W
When I think about assistive technology, I immediately think of the Special Needs student. My daughter has been in special education classes all her life
and still has difficulty communicating. Obviously,
assistive technology is important in her learning and
to foster her communications. But what about the
“regular” education students? Shouldn’t they all be
taking advantage of technology in the classroom to
help them learn, communicate, and think?
As a high school math teacher in the late 80’s and early 90’s, I
remember discussing whether and when calculators were going
to be allowed on tests. Now we don’t let a student in the door
without one. When was it that we began requiring students to use
a word processor when writing a report, or the Internet for the
research on that same report? I propose that it will be detrimental
if we continue our trend and hesitate in welcoming assistive technology for all students.
I have two concerns for the future:
1) Will the classroom be slow to embrace personal assistive technology that can accelerate student learning and production?
2) Will the state of California be able to move content standards
fast enough to adjust for these technology tools?
Let’s start by imagining what type of assistive technology a student
might have just ten years from now—when our current K-2 kids
are in high school. I think it is safe to assume that all students
will have cheap access to some type
New tools will rush of small portable wireless tool that
into the home and combines a cell phone, messaging,
Internet, email, chat, video, music,
business market
camera, audio recorder, etc. We can
but will be slow to hope that input will be a projected
keyboard and/or voice. Output may
be accepted in our
be a screen visible within a pair of
public schools unless eyeglasses or projected onto a flat
we as educators lead surface such as student desks. Text to
speech could allow students to listen
the way and insist. through earphones. The information
they are accessing or whom they are
communicating with and how that
is organized will also advance in sophistication. All of their assignments are automatically uploaded to the device when they walk
on campus. Oh, and a GPS chip allows the school and parents
to know where the device is at all times. (Maybe we can call this
device an “iDo”.) So this all gives students instant access to information and people.
What was it like during the Civil War? Instantly watch a video,
have a soldier’s letter read to you, question an expert in Civil War
history, and debate the causes without moving from your seat. Do
we allow the use of the “iDo” in class? More importantly, if society
now has this tool, what do we need to teach our children about it?
A few months ago, I had a conversation with Dr. Susan Magnone,
the Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction at
Continued on page 23
Winter 2006 OnCUE
www.cue.org
p r o fe s s i o na l
by Barbara Bray
[email protected]
d eve lo p m e nt
13
Preparing Teachers to
Differentiate Instruction
Access for All Readers
T
The digital native is here – today – in our schools.
Students with and without learning disabilities can figure out how to text message and use their cell phones
better than most adults. Most students can download
and upload videos and photo albums, and create their
own space online. Even with these technology skills,
students may have problems reading an article assigned
to them from a website, book, or textbook.
More than six million students in the United States receive special
education services; half are classified as having a learning disability.
Over 40% of students with learning disabilities spend 80% or more
of their school day in inclusive classrooms. (25th Annual Report)
With more students identified with learning disabilities being educated in inclusive classrooms, teachers are expected to differentiate
instruction effectively so all students perform grade-level work.
You may find in addition to those identified with learning disabilities there are other students in your classroom having difficulty
understanding the reading material. To ensure comprehension and
equitable access to materials, you can include resources with different reading levels on the same topic. Word provides an option
under Spelling and Grammar to check for readability. After you
choose this option, select text from a website, paste it into Word,
and then go to Tools to Spelling and Grammar. After clicking
through the options, up comes a box with Fleisch Reading Ease
and Fleish-Kincaid Grade Level. I first learned this from Adrienne
deWolf from CTAP IV who created a website on Mayan Culture
for different reading abilities. (Mysteries of the Mayan Culture:
<my-ecoach.com/online/webresourcelist.php?rlid=2846>)
If you want to assign a list of suggested books to read, I recommend going to Lexile.com (<www.lexile.com>) first to check the
Lexile score of each book. I checked Island of the Blue Dolphins, a
5th grade book with a Lexile score of 1000L. Reading what the text
measures from the Lexile Map, this book comes in with a grade
level of 6 to 7—higher than I thought.
Teachers need more information about the resources they want to
use with their students as well as more information about their students, including their reading level.
Gaggle.Net (<www.gaggle.net>) provides safe student email and has
just released a new Auditory Feedback System (AFS) that enables
users (students, teachers, and parents) to receive audible reinforcement to all outbound and inbound emails, blogs, and message board
posts. Students can have their outbound emails read out loud before
they are sent, allowing them to make corrections. It’s another way to
encourage students to proof read their own emails before sending.
Continued on page 23
This column in draft stage reads at 11th grade level. I could go
back and create another version of this article at 8th grade level or
lower by changing my vocabulary.
If I design a lesson that refers to websites, I need to consider the
reading level of each site. For websites with reading levels too high
for my audience, I will need to include directions about using the
website at a more appropriate reading level.
www.cue.org
Winter 2006 OnCUE
14
featu r e
Center for Accessible Technology
Promotes Effective Use
The Center for Accessible Technology (C for AT) engages in assessing the assistive technology needs
of children and adults with disabilities, and providing instruction and support in school and home
settings. C for AT also provides consultation on accessible web design and digital accessibility,
and consults with libraries and school districts on assistive technology and making
computer labs accessible for people with disabilities.
Looking Back: 23 Years of Assistive Technology
By Dmitri Belser
[email protected]
In 1983, I had my first exposure to assistive technology (AT)
when I was asked by San Francisco State University (SFSU) to
become a trainer for the Kurzweil Reading Machine. The KRM
was a fascinating piece of equipment, and did something that at
the time was considered revolutionary: printed material (a book,
magazine or sheet of paper) could be placed on a screen, and
the machine scanned the document and then read it aloud in a
computerized voice.
It was not small (the KRM consisted of a large scanner, an equally large CPU, and a control box roughly the size of a shoe box),
and it was not cheap (when SFSU got their KRM, the price had
just dropped from $50,000 to the bargain rate of $30,000) but it
was a technological breakthrough.
Twenty-three years later, the face of assistive technology has
greatly changed. First, the phrase “assistive technology” now covers a large range of software and hardware solutions designed for
people with a wide range of disabilities. And as computers have
become ubiquitous, AT solutions have become more widely available—and significantly less expensive.
In the early days, compatibility between AT and standard desktop
programs could be a huge problem. Often AT caused standard
programs to crash (or vice versa), or the entire computer to freeze.
Today, those compatibility issues have been largely resolved. Even
the hardware compatibility is easier: the widespread use of USB
ports has made most AT work seamlessly with operating systems.
Many AT solutions are now built into standard operating systems. As a person with low vision, it is easy for me to use any
computer: I simply change the font size to a minimum of 16
Winter 2006 OnCUE
point. The ability to set preferences is not generally thought of as
a disability accommodation, but for people with disabilities, preferences are what make computers accessible.
Probably the biggest change in assistive technology has been in
how people find out about it. When the Center for Accessible
Technology opened its doors in 1983, we were literally the only
game in town. People who wanted information about AT called
us from all over the country. The Alliance for Technology Access
(<www.ataccess.org>) grew out of that need—to help create a
nationwide network of AT resource centers.
With all the AT resources available, the need for assistance from
experts is still there. One of our functions in Berkeley is to be a
place where people can see various options and make decisions
based on trying out various AT solutions. We still hold regular
Open Resource sessions every other Wednesday from 4 - 6 PM,
and are happy to make individual appointments (call 510 8413224). AT is not a “one size fits all” for people with disabilities:
individuals have different needs and preferences, and exploring a
range of options is an important part of the process.
Why BAD is Good
By Dmitri Belser
In 2004, the Center for Accessible Technology launched the BAD
Network—the Bay Area Disability Network.
People with disabilities in the Bay Area have developed expertise
in living with disability. As people age, acquire disabilities, or have
family members with disabilities, that pool of knowledge can be
useful to the newer members of the disability community. The
question is: how do people who need disability expertise ask the
people who have it?
www.cue.org
fe at ure
The BAD Network is modeled on the structure and success of the
Berkeley Parents Network (BPN at <parents.Berkeley.edu>), and is
designed to be simple and straightforward. Members sign up to
receive two emails a week (<badnetwork.org/subscribe.htm>): one
containing the most recent questions asked of the Network, and
one that includes last week’s questions and the answers submitted by members. Using email makes the information accessible to
everyone: people can read it using their preferred email software,
and the simple “text only” format makes it easy for use with assistive technology.
Additionally, anyone can go to the BAD Network website (<badnetwork.org>) and look through the archived questions and answers
organized by category.
The Ed Roberts Campus (ERC) is a project aiming to build
a global center on disability at the Ashby BART station. The
BAD Network is a kind of “virtual ERC.” The goal of the ERC
and of the BAD Network is similar: bring together the knowledge bank and experience of the community in one place,
where people will know where to go to find answers. Join us!
Dmitri Belser is the Executive Director of the Center for
Accessible Technology in Berkeley. Dmitri is also the President of
the Ed Roberts Campus, a consortium of seven disability agencies,
and chairs the City of Berkeley’s Commission on Disability.
New Features in Naturally Speaking 9
By Jane Berliss-Vincent
The best way to understand the BAD Network is to review a few
postings by users. The wide range of discussion topics demonstrates
the breadth of the community served, and the resourcefulness demonstrated by readers.
Cell Phone for Hard of Hearing User
Q • Do you know of any cell phone for those who are hard of
hearing? My 85 year old mother wears a hearing aid. I have
let her try three different cell phones and they all do not
work well. Do you have any suggestion for a cell phone?
A • There’s a brief article and links to two providers of hearing
aid compatible phones at <www.hearinglossweb.com/res/
tele/cell/cell.htm>. An Austrian company is also coming
out with a phone that’s not only hearing aid compatible,
but also has larger, easier to read buttons—see <www.
slashphone.com/111/3859.html>.
Clean my Ride?
Q • Is there a place where I can get a wheelchair professionally
cleaned? I was given a powerchair that seems to work well,
but it really needs to be cleaned. It basically needs to be
“detailed” like a filthy car would have to be done.
A • I think you’ve answered your own question. I had a wheelchair that was in pretty disgusting condition, so I removed
the batteries and then had a friend take it to a car wash.
They used a power wash on it and got it really clean. You
can also rent/buy a power wash attachment for a regular
garden hose. Home Depot and places like that sell these
attachments that are made for cleaning decks, but you
could use it on your chair too, as long as you are careful.
I also used a Mr. Clean scrubbing pad on the upholstery
of my chair. It really did work great. It has cleaning fluid
imbedded in it, so wear gloves, and be careful you don’t
damage the seat, but it does a good job.
15
[email protected]
Voice recognition software has often been touted as a likely
accommodation answer for the needs of many children with
manual and/or learning disabilities. The most widely used
program is probably NaturallySpeaking (available for Windows
only), and its latest release, Version 9, contains two capacities
that bring it closer to its longtime potential.
First, the requirement to spend several minutes doing an initial
training has been eliminated. The option of doing the training
still exists—and is still recommended—but potential users now
need only go through two brief sound checks before being able
to compose their own text, and the sound checks can even be
performed by someone else if desired.
Second, it can now be used with a wireless Bluetooth headset
as its microphone. This will be a boon to users who can’t independently put on the traditional headband-style headset, as well
as those who find most microphone cables too short. Bluetooth
models compatible with NaturallySpeaking 9 are listed at
<support.nuance.com/compatibility/>. Choose “Dragon
NaturallySpeaking,” then “Wireless microphones.”
This version still doesn’t address some of the core issues that
have always made it a less-than-ideal product for children, such
as the need to practice for accuracy to improve, frustration
caused by a program that makes mistakes independent of the
user, and accuracy problems due to inconsistent vocal quality
caused by dysarthric speech or even puberty. Still, for teenagers
whose voices have already changed and whose learning disabilities aren’t well served by simpler technologies such as talking
word processors or word prediction programs, Version 9 is
the first I’d be inclined to recommend as at least worth trying.
Jane Berliss-Vincent is Director of Training at the Center for
Accessible Technology.
MORE from C for AT on page 21
www.cue.org
Winter 2006 OnCUE
16
Tips
a n d
t r ick s
by Linda Oaks
[email protected]
Getting By With a Little Help
From Your Computer Friends
R
Raise your hand if you are older than you used
to be… As we age, our eyes, ears, hands and other
parts of our bodies don’t seem to work as well as
they once did. Happily for us, and for our students
who may also have some slight difficulties, your
friendly computer sits ready to help you along
your long and winding road. If you need just a
little help instead of expensive assistive equipment,
let’s explore how today’s operating systems and applications can
ease your hard day’s night.
Access Windows Accessibility
through the Start Menu, then
through Control Panels.
Access the Mac’s Universal
Access through the
System Preferences.
Vision – Resolution
There are several options to increase the visibility of your computer. The resolution of your desktop is a good place to start.
The higher the resolution, the more pixels on your screen. This
allows you to see more but the icons, text, and cursor are smaller.
Consider changing the resolution to a lower number. Mac users
can access this through System Preferences and clicking on
Display. Windows users can right-click on the desktop and
select Properties, then select Settings. You can also click
on the Appearance tab to change the text size of windows
and icons. Mac users can also change the size of the icons on the
desktop by clicking on the View menu and selecting View
Options. Open a window and do the same and you can
change the icon size for a single window or all windows.
Vision – Zoom and the Magnifier
Both platforms have the ability to zoom in on a particular part
of the screen. Windows calls it the Magnifier. You can turn it
on using CTRL+ESC, press R, type MAGNIFY, press ENTER.
Change the options or turn it off by right clicking on the magni-
Winter 2006 OnCUE
fied area. On the Mac, this
feature is called Zoom.
Turn it on by pressing
COMMAND-OPTION8. To zoom in, press
COMMAND-OPTIONEQUAL SIGN. To zoom
out, press COMMANDOPTION-HYPEN. You
can change other options in the “Universal Access”
System Preference.
How About the Office Suite?
All of the Office applications include other measures for ease of
use. You can increase the magnification of any document by
increasing the percentage shown on the Standard Toolbar. You
can also set the default size of your opening fonts. In Word,
go to the FORMAT menu to FONT. Change to the font and
size you’d like and click DEFAULT. Your documents will now
open in this larger size. In Excel, the default is set through the
PREFERENCES under the GENERAL tab. You can also customize the toolbars to include only the tools you or your students
may need. Access the Customizable features by going to the
VIEW MENU, to TOOLBARS, to CUSTOMIZE.
And the Internet?
You can also increase the readability of text on a website by
accessing the VIEW MENU and changing the percentage of the
text size. You can also copy and paste text into a word processing
document to take advantage of the fonts, highlighting, and spacing capabilities.
A final reminder to help prevent a future disability: Be sure to
modify your work environment to avoid fatigue, eyestrain, and
wrist injuries. After all, Sgt. Pepper may not be around to need
you or feed you when you’re sixty-four!
Linda Oaks is an elementary teacher in Orange County and a
frequent speaker at CUE events. Visit <www.cue.org> for more tips,
including text to speech and Sticky Keys.
www.cue.org
17
Stories We Tell continued from page 5
At Sharon’s website, you will also find the history of AT legislation, a glossary of terms, selected software reviews, resources, and
many links to organizations and other web pages that provide
information and support for students with disabilities, as well as
their parents and teachers. These are all exceptional tools to help
us enhance the story of technology assisting ALL students.
Share a Story – Recognize a CUE Hero
I encourage you to look around you
for leaders, visionaries and innovators
like Carol Anne and Sharon and submit their names for the CUE Awards
program, or perhaps even nominate
them for the CUE Board of Directors.
We need to tap into the powerful stories happening within our membership
to ensure CUE’s continued leadership as an organization of innovators
and catalysts for learning. We will
recognize these champions at the Annual Conference in Palm
Springs. Don’t miss it! More info: <www.cue.org/awards/> and
<www.cue.org/nomination/>.
Technology and Special Needs continued from page 7
these limitations and be successful in school. School was a
living hell for me, but it need not be that way for the children
of today. I strongly believe that ALL children benefit when
modern telematic tools are placed at their disposal. Many
teachers e-mail me often with success stories from their own
classrooms. I’m sure every reader of this magazine understands this fundamental truth: properly used, computers can
help open doors to learning and creative expression for all.
Not providing students with access to computers is (in my
view) like not allowing students with vision impairment access
to glasses. Steve Jobs used to make the point this way: A cheetah can run faster than a human. But when the human has a
bicycle, she can outdistance a cheetah. Jobs called computers
“bicycles for the mind.”
The prosthetic view of computing does not just bring value
to students with identified special needs; it brings value to
all—students and teachers alike. The challenge is providing
meaningful access to all children. In this regard, we are failing
miserably. Today’s student/computer ratio of 4:1 means that
we have a computer penetration of only 25% in our schools.
This means if Juan is using a computer, that Maria, Phyllis
and Henry are not. How we, the richest nation on earth, can
deny access to such powerful tools is beyond my comprehension. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the
U.S. spends almost $200 million per day on the Iraq war. At
today’s prices, this could purchase 500,000 student laptops per
day, each loaded with rich software packages. We, as a nation,
have shown a willingness to spend money, just not to spend it
in support of our children.
So, those of you who dig deeply into your personal
resources to help all the children in your charge have my
undying gratitude. You are using whatever resources you
can find to make a positive difference in the lives of your
students. It is just a shame that you are being asked to do
this—and more—without the kind of meaningful investment
your craft deserves.
David Thornburg, Ph.D., Director, Global Operations,
Thornburg Center for Professional Development (<www.tcpd.
org>) loves to hear from readers and will gladly come to your
school or district to give presentations or workshops on a
variety of topics.
www.cue.org
Winter 2006 OnCUE
18
n ee gw i ss l&a tu i pv de a u
l
t ep sd a t e
By Chris York
Technology News
Since much of what happens with technology is dependent on funding, here is a
brief recap of what is happening at both
the State and Federal levels.
K-12 Voucher Program
The last opportunity to appeal the settlement that is funding the K-12 Voucher
program in California passed in mid-July.
This program will provide between $400
and $600 million to schools with greater
than 40% or more of their students who
are eligible to receive free or reduced
price meals through the National School
Lunch Program.
On September 18, 2006, the Online
RFA was released, with notification of
voucher awards beginning shortly thereafter. Please see the CDE site at <www.
cde.ca.gov/ls/et/st/etv.asp> or <www.cue.
org/etv/> for more information.
EETT – Not Gone Yet!
CUE received encouraging news July
18 as members of the Senate Labor-
HHS-Education Appropriations
Subcommittee voted to continue
funding the Enhancing Education Through Technology block
grant program, the largest single source
of ed tech funding in the federal budget, at $272 million. This is quite a turn
of events, particularly after the House
took President Bush’s lead and voted to
eliminate the program in the coming fiscal year. Though it is clear that the fate of
EETT is not guaranteed, this vote makes
it possible for EETT to return in 2007.
AB1985 in Suspense
AB 1985 (Daucher), which would extend
the Online Classes Pilot Program (AB
294) an additional year, has been placed
in suspense in the Senate Appropriations
Committee. AB 294 has allowed a group
of districts to explore the effectiveness of
online teaching and learning in California. The data gathered by the extension
of the pilot program is critical to the
entire idea of providing this learning
alternative to California students.
CUE Legislative Advocacy
Committee Chair
[email protected]
SB 812 Vetoed
In spite of strong support by CUE and
other educational groups, Governor
Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 812 (Soto).
The intent of this legislation, which
received strong support in both the Assembly and Senate, was to create a Technology Report Card for schools. The
report card would have brought together
all of the information that the California
Department of Education gathers regarding technology implementation within a
school into a single report accessible to
the public.
DOPA Position
CUE joined ITSE, CoSN and ALA in
opposition to H.R. 5319, otherwise
known as the Deleting Online Predators
Act. For the full position statement and
podcast, visit <www.cue.org/dopa/>
PRE-REGISTRATION ENDS FEB. 9
• JOIN thousands at the premier west coast event for innovative
educators every year!
• FULFILLS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS of
Enhancing Education Though Technology (EETT) and the California
Ed Tech K-12 Voucher Program.
• Over 200 exhibits, close to 300 sessions, hands-on WORKSHOPS,
AND SEMINARS!
• DISCOVER classroom integration techniques for blogs, podcasts
and the use of countless other emerging technologies.
• Experience Deneen Frazier Bowen’s dramatic THE NATIVES ARE
RESTLESS Keynote, and spotlight sessions from Peter H. Reynolds,
Leslie Fisher and Will Richardson.
• Network and share!
For more information please
contact CUE at 510.814.6630 or
online at www.cue2007.org
Winter 2006 OnCUE
www.cue.org
C TAP
19
by Bonnie Marks and Brian Bridges
[email protected] and [email protected]
Money Falls from the Sky – Part III – Professional Development
Since money has started falling from the
sky in the form of the Education Technology K-12 Voucher Program, make sure
you reserve about 25% of the funds for
ongoing professional development that
focuses on improving student learning and
integrating technology into the curriculum.
Planning for Technology Integration
As your district was preparing to apply for
the Education Technology K-12 Voucher
Program, the CDE and CTAP advised
them to assemble a team of district stakeholders that included curriculum, technology, and administrative representatives.
We recommended that teams begin by
reviewing their current district technology
plan and that they use the plan’s curricular
and professional development activities as
a guide for dispersing funds over the term
of the voucher program, which is six years.
Given the life span of the voucher program, your district technology team, as
well as those who revise/rewrite the plan,
should carefully craft professional activities
that make best use of your funds.
Components of an Effective
Professional Development Program
Section 9 of your technology plan requires
you to reference “Relevant Research”
that validates your plan’s objectives. One
Bits&Bytes
All Affiliate Members: Please log in
to your CUE.org account at <www.
cue.org> to update your contact
information. CUE and your affiliate use email to communicate with
members, so please be sure your
email address is up to date.
research article, “Critical Issue: Providing
Professional Development for Effective
Technology Use” (<www.ncrel.org/sdrs/
areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.
htm>), summarizes recommendations
from a variety of research reports. The article advises that professional development
programs should be part of an overall
school improvement plan and should
contain a number of components.
Training programs must first be focused
on improving student achievement. While
some training is necessary to improve
teachers’ technology skills, the bulk of
your professional development should
focus on integrating technology into the
curriculum to improve student learning.
Rather than a one-shot approach, teacher
training should be ongoing, in-depth, and
hands-on. Other components recommend
that you provide teachers sufficient time to
plan, practice, and reflect on their learning. The authors advise that it may take
four or more years of ongoing training to
create systemic change. Visit the NCREL
site given above to reference the entire list
of recommendations.
CUE is an approved professional development vendor for the annual conference.
Consider sending a team to the spring CUE
conference to learn about best practices, to
attend hands-on classes, and to bring back
materials that can be shared with others.
Budgeting for Professional Development
What percentage of your funds should
be devoted to professional development?
The federal standard, as stated in the
Enhancing Education Through Technology grant (EETT), is 25%, meaning that
25% of your EETT funds must be spent
on training. The research article above
recommends an even higher standard:
30%. While the voucher program will not
require you to devote funds for professional development, relevant research provides
the foundation as well as recommendations for a quality, ongoing professional
development program.
OnCTAP Podcast
Find this column and other OnCTAP
podcasts at the iTunes store by searching
for CTAP, or link directly to the podcast
site: <www.gcast.com/u/bbridges51/
onctap/>.
For complete information, contact your local
regional office through the CTAP website
<www.ctap.k12.ca.us>. Bonnie Marks is
chairperson of the State Coordinating Council and director of CTAP Region 4. Brian
Bridges is Program Manager for CTAP Region 6 and is on the CUE Board of Directors.
Assistive Technology Visionary to Speak at CUE’s Macworld Symposium
Join CUE members and other educators at the 2007 Macworld Conference
and Expo. CUE is once again producing the K12 Educator Symposium on
January 10, 2007. Among the line up of outstanding speakers is Alan Brightman,
Founder, Apple Computer’s Worldwide Disability Solutions Group; Founder,
AT&& Labs Teenage Division; and current Senior Policy Director at Yahoo!
Attend his session – The Accessible Mac: Yesterday and Tomorrow:
Today the Macintosh is one of the most accessible personal computers on the
planet. But it wasn’t always that way. This session reviews the history of accessible design at Apple and looks at ways that the Macintosh has uniquely affected
students with disabilities and students with serious illness.
For more info or to register online visit <www.cue.org/macworld/>.
www.cue.org
Winter 2006 OnCUE
20
th e
C UE
R ev i ew
The California Learning Resource Network (CLRN) provides
by Sandra Burdick
[email protected]
links to free Internet sites for students and teachers that have no
advertising or e-commerce. The Web Information Links section of
CLRN contains primary, secondary, and reference resources.
Below are a few of the 1,300 web information links found on CLRN.
Title: A Guide for Writing Research Papers Based on
MLA Documentation Publisher: Capital Community College Library
Grades: 7-12
Media type: Primary, reference
Resource type: Internet
URL: wwwold.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/
Subject Area: English-Language Arts
Title: National Library of Virtual Manipulatives for
Interactive Mathematics
Publisher: Utah State University
Grades: K-12
Media type: Internet
URL: nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/index.html
Subject Area: Mathematics
Interactive manipulatives using Java applets allow students
to manipulate physical objects to explore various mathematics concepts. The site covers Numbers and Operations,
Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, Data Analysis, and
Probability. Materials are grouped by grade levels: PreK-2,
3-5, 6-8, and 9-12.
Title: California History Timeline
Publisher: California Historical Society
Grades: 4 and above
Media type: Internet
Resource type: Secondary
URL: www.californiahistory.net
Subject Area: History-Social Science
The story of the State of California is presented in this illustrated timeline, which covers the following periods: The
Physical Setting: California and Beyond; The First Californians:
Native Cultures; European Exploration: Voyages of Discovery;
A Spanish Colonial Frontier: Missions, Presidios, Pueblos;
Mexican California: The Heyday of the Ranchos; The Gold
Rush: California Transformed; The Impact of the Railroad:
The Iron Horse and the Octopus; Economic Growth: Progress
and Its Discontents; The Great Depression: California in the
Thirties. The site includes many images, graphics, maps, and
charts to illustrate the stories.
Winter 2006 OnCUE
This site includes an introduction; sections on note taking,
plagiarism, format, citations, grammar, and writing; and how to
cite online sources. It offers many examples and models. This
work was originally based on recommendations in the MLA
Handbook’s fourth edition and is currently updated to conform
to the sixth edition of the MLA Handbook (2003).
The California Learning Resource Network (CLRN) is a
statewide education technology service of the California
Department of Education and administrated by the Stanislaus
County Office of Education, Ellis Vance, Director. Search the
CLRN database at <clrn.org>. Permission is hereby granted to
California educators to copy this material for instructional use.
The document may not be distributed for profit. © California
Department of Education.
www.cue.org
21
C for AT continued from page 15
Inspiration Options for Students
with Learning Disabilities
By Jennifer McDonald-Pelletier
[email protected]
I use Inspiration with students with learning disabilities in three
primary contexts:
1) to adapt writing assignments by taking information, organizing it,
and adding scaffolding support. For example, a student was given
a complex writing assignment in which she was asked to research
and answer many different questions about a civilization. Since it
was overwhelming, we broke out each topic, posed questions, and
then put in blank boxes into which she would write her answers.
(See the partial map above.)
2) when you’re working one on one, as a brainstorming and organizational tool. One of the nice things is how easy it is to use on
the fly—while you are talking it out, you are generating the map
and you or they are doing the data entry.
3) for curriculum modification—for something that might have
nothing to do with writing. For example, make a study guide
for memorization in which students answer the question in a
bubble and check it against the answer you put in the note for the
bubble. A vocabulary diagram can be made by selecting pictures
and keying in their names, then changing the text color to white.
Then make bubbles with all the words in them. Students can
turn on the speech feature, click on the ear and then on a picture.
The word will be spoken to them. Then they can draw a line
from the picture to the bubble with its word. This page can be
printed out and turned in.
Jennifer McDonald-Peltier is an assistive technology specialist at the
Center for Accessible Technology.
www.cue.org
Differentiating Instruction continued from page 9
References
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
New York: Longman.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Frost, E.J., Hill, W.H., &
Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives. Handbook I:” Cognitive domain. New
York: David McKay.
California Department of Education and California
Association for the Gifted. (1994). Differentiating the
core curriculum and instruction to provide advanced
learning opportunities. Sacramento, CA.
Castle, S., Deniz, C. B., & Tortora, M. (2005). Flexible
grouping and student learning in a high-needs school.
Education and Urban Society, 37(2), 139-150.
Human Resources Development Canada. (n.d.) 2001
career handbook: Volumes 1 and 2. Essential skills
profiles. Retrieved September 28, 2005, from
<www23.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/ch/e/docs/ch_classifica
tion_structure.asp> Canadian Government Publishing.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (n.d.) Taxonomy of life skills.
Retrieved September 28, 2005 from <genesismission.
jpl.nasa.gov/educate/diffangle/career/taxonomy.pdf>
Joyce, B. R. & Weil, M. (1996). Models of Teaching,
(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B. B. (1964).
Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook II:
Affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D. & McTighe, J. (1993).
Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment
using the dimensions of learning model. Aurora,
Co, McREL Institute/Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McIntyre, T. (2003). Sociograms. Hunter College, City
University of New York. Retrieved September 28,
2005. <maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/
EDSPC715_MCINTYRE/Sociogram.html>
Taba, H. (1967). Teacher’s handbook for elementary
school social studies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tieso, C.L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking
any more. Roeper Review, 26 (1), 29-37.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom:
Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Winter 2006 OnCUE
sorry, No Purchase Orders accepted
Membership Application
Benefits
I am using this form to …
• Discounted registration fees on CUE
conference and other state and local
CUE activities.
• Annual subscription to OnCUE, published four times a year.
• Recognition programs and LeRoy Finkel Fellowship.
• Voting privileges.
• Continuing Education Credit for attending CUE conference.
• Membership in one Affiliate and/or any
number of Special Interest Groups.
• Proactive legislative advocacy
• CUE Up! email newsletter for advance
notice and up-to-date information.
• Group Membership discounts. Please
call the CUE office for information.
• Discounted NECC conference registration
• Discounts on other local resources (i.e. Resource Center for Teachers
(RAFT) including free access to the
Technology Center)
• myCUE suite of benefits, visit www.cue.
org/mycue/ for info.
r Become a Member r Renew Membership r Make corrections/updates
E-mail Address (required) r YES! Please alert me to 3rd-party opportunities.
Name
Address r Home r Work
City
State
Affiliate Option for California Residents
Home Phone
Work Phone
CUE supports many regional Affiliates and SIGs. As a CUE member, you not only gain
access to a network of computer-using educators in your area, but are free to join an
affiliate, and any number of our special interest groups. To add more than one affiliate,
there is an additional $10 fee. School District (spell out complete name)/Organization
r Beach Cities CUE
www.bccue.org
Los Angeles South Bay Area
r Cahuilla CUE www.cahuillacue.org
Coachella Valley
r Capitol CUE
www.capcue.org
Alpine, Amador, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer,
Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, and
Yuba counties
r Central California CUE www.cccue.com
San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Mariposa,
Merced, Tuolumne, and Calaveras counties
r Central Valley CUE
www.cvcue.org
Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Madera counties
r Cuela
www.cuelosangeles.org
Los Angeles County
r East Bay CUE
www.ebcue.org
Alameda and Contra Costa counties
r Gold Coast CUE goldcoastcue.org
Ventura County
r Orange County CUE
www.occue.org
Orange County
www.sdcue.org
San Diego County
r San Gabriel Valley CUE r Kern CUE Kern County
r Mission Trail CUE
www.mtcue.org
San Luis Obispo County
r North Coast CUE www.nccue.org
Mendocino, Lake, Del Norte,
Humboldt counties
position:
r Teacher
r Admin
r Classified
r TOSA/Tech
Coordinator
r Parent r Retired
Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties
r Wine Country CUE www.winecountrycue.org
Sonoma and Napa Counties
organization:
r Student r Higher Ed.
Faculty r IT Prof.
r Executive or
Director
r Other:
r Elementary School
r Middle School
r High School
r Community
College
r University
r Business Sector r Nonprofit r Government
r Other:
how did you hear about cue?
r None
Special Interest Groups
r Administrators’ SIG
Support for technology-using school administrators.
Michael Simkins
[email protected]
r Independent Schools SIG
Private, parochial, K-12, and higher
education organizations.
Donna Dayton [email protected]
r Imperial Valley CUE San Bernardino and Riverside counties
except Coachella Valley
school type: r Public r Private/Independent
r Tri CUE A support group for learning resource
professionals.
Lesley Farmer [email protected]
r Inland Area CUE Job Title
www.sgvcue.org
San Gabriel Valley
r Library Media Educators’ SIG
www.ivcue.org
Imperial County
School Site
r San Diego CUE
r iCUE Silicon Valley
homepage.mac.com/icuesv
San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
Zip
r TEC/ASTUTE
Professional development across the
teaching continuum
Pam Redmond [email protected]
Robin Chiero [email protected]
r Technology Coordinators’ SIG
School, district and county coordinators’ support.
Tim Landeck [email protected]
Karl Forest [email protected]
r School/Co-worker r CUE Affiliate Event r OnCUE Journal
r CUE Website r Other Educational Conference r CUE Conference Publication
r Advertisement r Other: ___________________ annual dues payment
r Group Membership $________
r US $40 – U.S. & Canada Regular Membership
r US $30 – U.S. & Canada Student Membership — Attach class
schedule to verify full-time status; 6 semester or 9 quarter unit minimum.
r US $65 – International r US $20 – Emeritus
r US $75 – 2 year Multi-year membership
r US $110 – 3 year Multi-year membership
affiliate & sig selection
r FREE – one Affiliate and SIG (choose at left)
r US $10 each additional Affiliate
r a check, payable to computer-using educators, is enclosed
r charge my: r VISA r MasterCard
sorry, no purchase orders accepted.
Account Number
Exp. Date
Signature (required for credit card orders)
pay to/mail to: Computer-Using Educators, Inc
or fax to:
387 17th Street, Suite 208
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 444-4569
For more information, please email CUE at [email protected].
Winter 2006 OnCUE
www.cue.org
23
Assistive Technology continued from page 12
the Contra Costa County Office of Education who has been
instrumental in the standards movement. My questions were
based around whether our state standards were carved in
stone. How quickly can they be modified to consider technology tools and access? Are there standards that no longer
need to be taught or ones that we now need to add? And if
we can’t move with the times, will this cause a surge in charter schools that take full advantage of these types of tools?
And this is just K-12; it is much harder to move universities.
If we think about it, we are all using assistive technology for
learning and communicating with Internet accessible cell
phones, PDAs, iPods and computers. These new tools will
rush into the home and business market but will be slow
to be accepted in our public schools unless we as educators
lead the way and insist. Who will be most comfortable with
this technology as it arrives on the scene? Who will need
it most? As technology advances at an exponential rate, we
need to be quick to consider its applicability to student
learning for all.
Access for All Readers continued from page 13
Differentiating instruction for reading abilities takes time.
Professional development needs to include the design of activities that differentiate and supplement the existing curriculum.
Professional developers, literacy coaches, technology coordinators, and media specialists can either design several models as
examples and for demonstration or collaborate with their teachers to create actual lessons or units.
Barbara Bray writes a regular column on professional development
for OnCUE, moderates a listserv <techstaffdevelop@yahoogroups.
com>, coordinates the Professional Development Quick Tips
(PDQs) for Techlearning.com, and is President of My eCoach
<www.my-ecoach.com>, a learning community that supports
coaching and mentoring. (See <www.cue.org> for more ideas,
including how to have books read online and where to find them.)
Resource
25th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to ensure the
free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities (2005). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services. Washington DC. US Department of Education.
Doug Prouty is a former CUE Board member and longtime
CUE presenter.
CUE t oYOU
Unpack a world
of possibilities–
bring CUE’s
quality workshops
to you!
CUEtoYOU workshops are approved
Ed Tech K12 Voucher professional
development providers.
Professional Development
workshops and seminars at
YOUR
site
Selected Topics now available statewide:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Podcasting Basics
iPod in Education
Educational Blogging
Classroom Uses of Digital Cameras
Administrator Technology Workshops
Bright Lights, Powerful Learning Projector Workshop
COMING SOON:
Picasa, Google Earth and many more...
More info and registration: www.cue.org/cuetoyou/
www.cue.org
Winter 2006 OnCUE
Calendar
For more information on these events
please visit www.cue.org/events/
2007
January 9-12 Macworld Conference and Expo,
K-12 Market Symposium produced by CUE,
San Francisco, CA www.macworldexpo.com
January 20 East Bay CUE’s 3rd Annual Cool Tools
2006
November 16-19 California School Library Association
(CSLA) Annual Conference, Sacramento, CA
www.schoolibrary.org
November 17-19 CLMS/CLHS/CUE Technology
Conference, “Teaching the Millennial Generation,”
Monterey, CA www.clms.net and www.clhs.net
December 1 Nominations for Gold Disk, Outstanding
Teacher, and Technology in Learning Leadership
awards due www.cue.org/awards/
December 15 Nominations for CUE Board of
Directors due www.cue.org/nomination/
Mini-CUE Conference, Alameda County Office of
Education, Hayward, CA www.ebcue.org
January 20 Orange County CUE Winter Technology
Conference, Newport Coast Elementary School,
Newport Beach, CA www.occue.org
February 1-3 Technology Reading & Learning
Diversity (TRLD) Conference, Hyatt Regency
Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA
www.trld.com
March 1-3 Annual CUE Conference, Sharing the
Summit, Palm Springs, CA www.cue.org
2008
May 5 San Gabriel Valley CUE Tech Fair 2007
CA www.cue.org
March 6-8 Annual CUE Conference, Palm Springs,
Village@Indian Hill Conference Center, Pomona,
CA www.sgvcue.org
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
ALAMEDA, CA
PERMIT NO. 81
Computer-Using Educators, Inc. | 387 17th Street, Suite 208 | Oakland, CA 94612
phone 510.814.6630 | fax 510.444.4569 | email [email protected] | website www.cue.org