Helping teachers make informed decisions when selecting assistive technology for secondary students with disabilities

References

• Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Boone, R., & Norman, A. (2006). Computer based instruction for purchasing skills. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 253–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., Doughty, T. T., & Courtney, W. T. (2014). Virtual and concrete manipulatives: A comparison of approaches for solving mathematics problems for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(1), 180–193. doi: 10.1007/s10803-013-1863-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouck, E. C., Shurr, J. C., Tom, K., Jasper, A. D., Bassette, L., Miller, B., & Flanagan, S. M. (2012). Fix it with TAPE: Repurposing technology to be assistive technology for students with high-incidence disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(2), 121–128. doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2011.603396
   Google Scholar
• Cihak, D. F., & Schrader, L. (2008). Does the model matter? Comparing video self-modeling and video adult modeling for task acquisition of adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(3), 9–20. doi: 10.1177/016264340802300302
   Google Scholar
• Edyburn, D. L. (2001). Models, theories, and frameworks: Contributing to understanding special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3), 54–24.
   Google Scholar
• Falloon, G. (2013). Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning pathways. Computers & Education, 68, 505–521. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finegan, C., & Austin, N. J. (2002). Developmentally appropriate technology for young children. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002, 87–102.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, S., Bouck, E. C., & Richardson, J. (2013). Middle school special education teachers’ perceptions and use of assistive technology in literacy instruction. Assistive Technology, 25(1), 24–30. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2012.682697
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gado, I., Ferguson, R., & van't Hooft, M. (2006). Using handheld-computers and probeware in a science methods course: Preservice teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 501–529.
   Google Scholar
• Israel, M., Maynard, K., & Williamson, P. (2013). Promoting literacy-embedded, authentic STEM instruction for students with disabilities and other struggling learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 18–25. doi: 10.1177/004005991304500402
   Google Scholar
• Miller, B., & Doughty, T. (2014). Self-monitoring checklists for inquiry problem solving: Functional problem solving methods for students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disability, 49(4), 555–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, B., Doughty, T., & Krockover, G. (2015). Using science inquiry methods to promote self determination and problem-solving skills for students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(3), 356–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, B., Krockover, G. H., & Doughty, D. (2013). Using iPads to teach inquiry science to students with a moderate to severe intellectual disability: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 887–911. doi: 10.1002/tea.21091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, B., & Martin, C. (2016). Digital notebooks for digital natives. Science and Children, 53(5), 84–89. doi: 10.2505/4/sc16_053_05_84
   Google Scholar
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen, C. (2011). Mission possible: Three keys to one-to-one success. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39, 16–21.
   Google Scholar
• Ok, M. W., Kim, M. K., Kang, E. Y., & Bryant, B. R. (2016). How to find good apps: An evaluation rubric for instructional apps for teaching students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(4), 244–252. doi: 10.1177/1053451215589179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick, S. (2011). New learning models: The evolution of online learning into innovative K-12 blended programs. Educational Technology, 51(6), 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 174–186. doi: 10.1177/0731948714550101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satsangi, R., Bouck, E. C., Taber-Doughty, T., Bofferding, L., & Roberts, C. A. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and concrete manipulatives to teach algebra to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(4), 240–253. doi: 10.1177/0731948716649754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satsangi, R., & Miller, B. (2017). The case for adopting virtual manipulatives in mathematics education for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61(4), 303–310. doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2016.1275505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, M., Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., McKenna, J. W., Hou, F., & Ok, M. W. (2017). Virtual manipulatives: Tools for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(3), 148–153. doi: 10.1177/1053451216644830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell, 162(5), 933–936. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber-Doughty, T. (2005). Considering student choice when selecting instructional strategies: A comparison of three prompting systems. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26(5), 411–432. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES). New York, NY: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Weng, P.-L., & Taber-Doughty, T. (2015). Developing an app evaluation rubric for practitioners in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(1), 43–58. doi: 10.1177/016264341503000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yakubova, G., Hughes, E. M., & Hornberger, E. (2015). Video-based intervention in teaching fraction problem solving to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(9), 2865–2875. doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2449-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zabala, J. (2005). Ready, SETT, go! Getting started with the SETT framework. Closing the Gap, Computer Technology in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 23(6), 1–3.
   Google Scholar