Purposeful Integration of Assistive Technology for Diverse Learner Needs in Educator Preparation Programs

Abstract

Educator Preparation Programs are designed around expectations of professional standards. As technology, both instructional and assistive, expands in K-12 classrooms, all pre-service educators (i.e., teachers, counselors, leaders, assistive technology specialists) require direct and intentional training in technology selection, implementation across settings, and evaluation of effectiveness. This study questioned how different benchmarks provide accountability for educational professionals’ technology integration to meet learners’ varied needs. Researchers analyzed existing professional preparation standards in relation to educator’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions toward using technology focusing on preparation or requirements for implementing AT in the classroom. The intersection across standards identified strengths and gaps in preparation expectations, and recommendations for augmenting preparation to integrate AT are discussed. Using the Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology (QIAT) as a framework, researchers analyzed the InTASC and 19 Specialized Professional Associations’ standards for instances where knowledge, skills, and dispositions about integrating technology aligned. The analysis identified only 52 of 572 standards related to technology integration. Alignment was present in key areas of the QIAT related to instruction such as collaboratively developing a plan, integration, shared responsibilities, and varied strategies. However, most points of alignment indicated only preparatory knowledge, skills, and dispositions, leaving educators lacking abilities to meaningfully integrate AT to meet learners’ varied needs. Implications and recommendations address this shortcoming in educator preparation expectations. By preparing educators to integrate AT, educators ensure educational equity for every student (Rose et al., 2005).

Keywords:

• Assistive technology
• educator preparation programs
• standards
• technology integration

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).