Access to hands-on mathematics measurement activities using robots controlled via speech generating devices: three case studies

References

• Van Rooijen M, Verhoeven L, Steenbergen B. Early numeracy in cerebral palsy: review and future research (Review). Dev Med Child Neurol 2011;53:202–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer LA, Loncke FT. Factors contributing to success or failure in vocational evaluation by users of augmentative and alternative communication devices. Clinical AAC Research Conference; Charlottesville, VA; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Bryen DN, Potts BB, Carey AC. So you want to work? What employers say about job skills, recruitment and hiring employees who rely on AAC. Augment Altern Commun 2007;23:126–39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNaughton D, Light J, Arnold KB. “Getting your wheel in the door”: successful full-time employment experiences of individuals with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 2002;18:59–76
   Google Scholar
• Bisanz J, Sherman JL, Rasmussen C, Ho E. Development of arithmetic skills and knowledge in preschool children. In: Campbell JID, ed. Handbook of mathematical cognition. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2005:143–62
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson L, Welander J, Granlund M. Participation in everyday school activities for children with and without disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil 2007;19:485–502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenks KM, de Moor J, van Lieshout EC, et al. The effect of cerebral palsy on arithmetic accuracy is mediated by working memory, intelligence, early numeracy, and instruction time. Dev Neuropsychol 2007;32:861–79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Walle JA, Karp KS, Bay-Williams JM. Elementary and middle school mathematics: teaching developmentally. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education. 2006. The common curriculum framework for K–9 mathematics. Available from: http://www.wncp.ca/math/ccfkto9.pdf [last accessed 21 Mar 2008]
   Google Scholar
• Ginsburg HP, Klein A, Starkey P. The development of children's mathematical thinking: connecting research with practice. In: Siegel IE, Renninger KA, eds. Handbook of child psychology, Volume 4: Child psychology in practice. 5th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1998:401–76
   Google Scholar
• Marsh LG, Cooke NL. The effects of using manipulatives in teaching math problem solving to students with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Res Pract 1996;11:58–65
   Google Scholar
• Dev OC, Doyle BA, Valente B. Labels needn’t stick: “At-risk” first graders rescued with appropriate intervention. J Educ Students Placed At Risk 2002;7:327–32
   Google Scholar
• Wisniewski Z, Smith D. How effective is touch math for improving students with special needs academic achievement on math addition mad minute timed tests? Lanhang, MD: ERIC Document Reproduction Service; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Avant MJT, Heller KW. Examining the effectiveness of touchmath with students with physical disabilities. Remedial Spec Educ 2011;32:309–21
   Google Scholar
• Reimer K, Moyer PS. Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: a classroom study. J Comput Math Sci Teach 2005;24:5–25
   Google Scholar
• Stanger C, Symington L, Miller H, Johns S. Teaching number concepts to all students. Teach Except Child 2000;33:65–9
   Google Scholar
• Bruner JS. Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1966
   Google Scholar
• Maccini P, Mulcahy CA, Wilson MG. A follow-up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Res Pract 2007;22:58–74
   Google Scholar
• McNeil NM, Uttal DH. Rethinking the use of concrete materials in learning: perspectives from development and education. Child Dev Perspect 2009;3:137–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell R, Hay K. Software-based access and control of robotic manipulators for severely physically disabled students. J Artif Intell Educ 1989;1:53–72
   Google Scholar
• Howell R, Martz S, Stanger CA. Classroom applications of educational robots for inclusive teams of students with and without disabilities. Technol Disabil 1996;5:139–50
   Google Scholar
• Kwee H, Quaedackers J. POCUS project: adapting the control of the MANUS manipulator for persons with cerebral palsy. ICORR ’99: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Stanford, CA; 1999:106–14
   Google Scholar
• Eberhart SP, Osborne J, Rahman T. Classroom evaluation of the Arlyn Arm robotic workstation. Assist Technol 2000;12:132–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith J, Topping M. The introduction of a robotic aid to drawing into a school for physically handicapped children: a case study. Br J Occup Ther 1996;59:565–9
   Google Scholar
• Cook A, Adams K, Volden J, et al. Using Lego robots to estimate cognitive ability in children who have severe physical disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:338–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bley NS, Thornton CA. Accommodating special needs. In: Thornton CA, Bley NS, eds. Windows of opportunity: mathematics for students with special needs. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 1994:137–66
   Google Scholar
• Olsson C. Participation of adolescents with complex communication needs at school: Considerations from public health issues. 14th International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) Conference; 26–29 July 2010; Barcelona, Spain
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser R, McGhie-Richmond D, Blackstien-Adler S, et al. Training a school team to integrate technology meaningfully into the curriculum: effects on student participation. J Special Educ Technol 2000;15:31–44
   Google Scholar
• Hunt P, Soto G, Maier J, et al. Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. Augment Altern Commun 2002;18:20–35
   Google Scholar
• Symington L, Stanger C. Math = success. Teach Except Child 2000;32:28–32
   Google Scholar
• Light JC, Drager KDR. Improving the design of augmentative and alternative technologies for young children. Assist Technol 2002;14:17–32
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson A. Learning language using infrared toys. 18th “Technology and Persons with Disabilities” Conference; 2002; Los Angeles, CA
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser RW. Social validation of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 1999;15:234–47
   Google Scholar
• Pearson Education Canada. Math makes sense 1. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Adams K. Involving users in the design of a speech generating device interface for Lego robot control. Annual RESNA [Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America] Conference; 2011; Toronto, ON
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Cook A. Measuring user accuracy and speed with scanning access on dynamic display speech generating devices. 14th International Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) Conference; 26–29 July 2010; Barcelona, Spain
   Google Scholar
• Dunn L, Dunn L. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 4th ed. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Helmbold B, Lucky K. “I tell you a story”: using narrative re-tell to assess AAC competencies. 14th International Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) Conference. 26–29 July 2010; Barcelona, Spain
   Google Scholar
• Glasgow C, Cowley J. The Renfrew Bus Story – American Edition. Centreville, DE: The Centreville School; 1994
   Google Scholar
• Clarke V, Schneider H. InterAACT Framework: Dynamic AAC goals planning guide. Pittsburgh, PA: DynaVox Mayer-Johnson; 2008. Available from: http://ca.dynavoxtech.com/training/toolkit/details.aspx?id=32 [last accessed 27 Nov 2009]
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Encarnação P. A training protocol for controlling Lego robots via speech generating devices. In: Gelderblom G, Soede M, Adriaens L, Miesenberger K, eds. 11th European Conference for the Advancement of Assistive Technology. Volume: Everyday technology for independence and care – AAATE 2011 Assistive Technology Research Series. Maastricht, The Netherlands; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Baker B, Hill K, Devylder R. Core vocabulary is the same across environments. Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference. Northridge, CA; 2000
   Google Scholar
• Caputo Boruta M, Bidstrup K. Making it a reality: using standards-based general education science and math curriculum to teach vocabulary and language structures to students who use AAC. Perspect Augment Altern Commun 2012;21:99–104
   Google Scholar
• Clarke M, Kirton A. Patterns of interaction between children with physical disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication systems and their peers. Child Lang Teach Ther 2003;19:135–51
   Google Scholar