Is assistive technology really helpful to students with learning disabilities? How do we know?

“Assistive technology (AT)...refers to any technology (commercial, modified, or customized) that can assist, increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” (Holmes & Silvestri, 2012, p. 82).

This blog post summarizes and reflects on the findings of Holmes and Silvestri (2012)  regarding whether or not AT is effective for postsecondary students with learning disabilities.

Article:

Holmes, A., & Silvestri, R. (2012). Assistive technology use by students with LD in postsecondary education: A case of application before investigation? Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 81-97.

Article Summary:

Holmes and Silvestri  (2012) reviewed the research literature regarding the efficacy of AT in assisting postsecondary students (PSS) with learning disabilities (LD).  Unfortunately, they were only able to unearth limited research.  Importantly, the research they found consisted of studies that were mainly “qualitative, single subject, and nonexperimental” (p. 87), rather than positivistically based, empirical studies that used control groups.  In addition, they discovered that the AT research is largely atheoretical, as are the recommendations made by disability service providers about AT for PSS with LD.

Studies reveal conflicting AT benefits for different users. Disturbingly, they noted that the use of AT in some users actually diminishes their academic performance, even though AT may enhance the performance of others.  For example, they refer to studies that suggest that text-to-speech software may actually reduce the reading effectiveness of students with working memory challenges, whereas it can benefit students with phonological decoding problems.

Holmes and Silvestri contend that AT is often recommended based on broad, untested assumptions made  by psychologists and disability service personnel who are often untrained in AT.  They provide reference to three important models of AT assessment.  Importantly, they assert that attention needs to be placed on studying the efficacy of AT in relationship to the underlying processing deficits of PSS with LD. They also caution psychologists not to recommend specific brands of AT such as Kurzweil, but rather to recommend certain categories of technology, such as text to speech software.  In addition, they suggest psychologists add caveats to their recommendations that allude to the need for final decisions about the efficacy of AT to be made on a trial and error, case-by-case, situational basis.

They note that there is a high abandonment rate of AT by users.  They provide many reasons for this, including the lack of proper training in the use of this technology. Holmes and Silvestri offer many excellent suggestions regarding topics related to AT and PSS with LD that merit further research.

Reflections:

Although I agree that more research is needed, as is more training for disability service personnel, Holmes and Silvestri seem to underrate the value of qualitative research.  Case studies and qualitative data can also be of great value in understanding the efficacy of AT.

Videos related to students with disabilities who use AT attest to the value of AT in assisting them to access their education.  For example, watch these videos:

Computers and people with LD

http://www.washington.edu/doit/Video/index.php?vid=29

Working Together: People with Disabilities and Computer Technology

http://www.washington.edu/doit/Video/index.php?vid=33&t=1

Below, one York graduate talks about the value of AT and other strategies in her educational and work success.

I welcome your comments and experience in using AT with PSS with LD.