The Iowa K12 Schools AT Needs Assessment Results - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 58
About This Presentation
Title:

The Iowa K12 Schools AT Needs Assessment Results

Description:

Text to Speech Programs. 31.9% Alternative Keyboards (large key, different layout, onscreen, etc. ... Electronic Braille Notetaker. 2.4% Results combine Gen Ed, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:24
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 59
Provided by: Nolo5
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Iowa K12 Schools AT Needs Assessment Results


1
The Iowa K-12 Schools AT Needs Assessment Results
Presented by James Stachowiak, MSE, ATP Noel
Estrada-Hernández, PhD, CRC
2
Todays Agenda
  • Introduction
  • Needs Assessment Methods
  • Needs Assessment Results
  • Previous Needs Assessment Conclusions
  • Current Needs Assessment Conclusions

3
Who Are We?
  • ICATER Iowa Center for Assistive Technology
    Education and Research
  • We are located in University of Iowas College of
    Education
  • We are a statewide resource for AT
  • We provide pre-service education on AT to
  • General Education Teachers
  • Special Education Teachers
  • School Administrators
  • School Psychologists
  • School Counselors

4
Our AT Needs Assessment
  • Provides a snapshot of the current state of AT
    service delivery, outcomes, and stakeholders
    participation in Iowa schools
  • Allows us to see the progress made over the last
    eight years
  • Identifies gaps in existing service delivery
  • Discusses the effects of current AT services on
    students with disabilities
  • Identifies needs of pre-service AT education
  • Obtains base data to advance research
    opportunities exploring the role of AT in other
    areas such as
  • Standardized testing
  • Classroom inclusion
  • Other disability-related issues

5
Measuring the AT Needs of Iowans with
Disabilities
  • Project funded by the University of Iowa
  • Office of Vice-President for Research

6
Participants
  • This study included representation from schools
    in all 10 Area Educational Agencies (AEAs) from
    the State of Iowa as well as the Des Moines
    Public Schools.
  • Parents
  • Teachers
  • AT Professionals
  • Administrators

7
Data Collection
  • Data collection was done in two phases
  • Electronic/Paper Surveys
  • Focus Groups

8
Data Collection Surveys
  • Developed by ICATER staff
  • Tested and proofed for content validity by
  • Iowa AT professionals
  • Iowa Department of Education staff
  • Members of ICATERs advisory board
  • Questions designed to understand
  • Participants AT knowledge
  • Participants AT comfort level
  • Participants AT experience level
  • Participants personal and perceived satisfaction

9
Data Collection Surveys
  • Surveys consisted of
  • 25-45 statements where participants selected a
    level of agreement on a five point Likert scale
  • Some statements were purposely negatively worded
  • Middle option of agreement was neutral
  • 2-3 open-ended questions where participants were
    able to provide a clearer explanation to their
    multiple choice answers

10
Data Collection Survey Distribution
  • Most surveys were distributed electronically
  • Surveys delivered directly to
  • Building and district administrators roughly
    1500
  • Alternative assessment teachers roughly 400
  • AT professionals 85
  • Surveys delivered indirectly to
  • Teachers via administrators
  • Parents (primarily paper copies)via Parent
    Educator Connection groups

11
Data Collection Survey Distribution
  • Direct Distribution
  • Email with link to electronic survey sent to each
    stakeholder once a week for three weeks
  • Indirect Distribution
  • Email with link for teacher survey was sent to
    administrators once a week for three weeks and
    administrators were asked to pass on to teachers
  • PEC groups were provided with packets of the
    survey and asked to send to parents, each sent a
    different amount

12
Data Collection Surveys
  • 2008-2009 Participants
  • 2000-2001 participants
  • Administrators - 285
  • AT Professionals - 53
  • Teachers - 1106
  • Parents - 56
  • Total 1497
  • AEA Staff - 397
  • LEA Administrators - 72
  • Special Education Teachers - 74
  • General Education Teachers - 65
  • Parents - 53
  • Others - 72
  • Total 733

13
Participants
14
Survey Results in General
  • Neutral was a popular selection
  • Dont know?
  • Doesnt apply?
  • In the middle?
  • Most answers averaged around 3 neutral
  • Many displayed very high standard deviations
    indicating high variance in answers

15
Survey Results - Administrators
  • N 285
  • 91.8 of the participants indicated they have not
    received formal AT education
  • 34.8 reported receiving AT training through
    professional conferences or colloquia

16
Survey Results - Administrators
17
Survey Results - Administrators
  • The AT Selection Process
  • 60 agree that AT is properly considered in IEP
    meetings
  • 87 agree that parents and students have an
    active role in the evaluation and selection of AT
    devices
  • 84 agree that the AT assessment, recommendation,
    trial, and implementation process occurs in a
    timely manner

18
Survey Results - Administrators
  • Funding
  • 82.8 indicated that cost is not the primary
    factor when choosing AT
  • 51 indicated not being knowledgeable of AT
    funding sources
  • Only 36.3 agreed that their school had
    appropriate AT funding

19
Survey Results - Administrators
  • Implementation and Follow up
  • 48.7 agree that school teachers incorporate AT
    in their classrooms in an adequate manner
  • 41.4 agree that the AEA AT team spends
    sufficient time working with students on AT
    (25.4 disagree)
  • 23.1 indicate that they consider AT knowledge,
    experience and formal training when hiring staff
  • 46 agree that students served receive proper AT
    follow up

20
Survey Results - Administrators
  • Universal Design for Learning
  • 70.5 either indicated they were neutral or
    disagreed that they understood the principles of
    UDL
  • Only 17.1 encourage teachers to use UDL

21
Survey Results - Administrators
  • Satisfaction (Personal and Perceived)
  • 47 of the participants indicated being satisfied
    with the AT services provided in their schools
  • 65 were satisfied with services provided by the
    AEA AT teams (only 5.8 disagree)
  • 60 of participants perceived that parents are
    satisfied with AT services provided through the
    school

22
Survey Results - Teachers
  • N 1,106
  • 64.5 - General Education Teachers
  • 35.5 - Special Education Teachers
  • Training
  • 62.1 of the participants indicated they have not
    received formal AT education
  • 20.4 reported receiving AT training through
    professional conferences or colloquia.
  • Only 15.4 indicated that schools/AEA offer
    sufficient AT training
  • 43.9 indicated having worked with a students
    that uses AT

23
Survey Results - Teachers
24
Survey Results - Teachers
  • Results combine Gen Ed, Special Ed, and Alt.
    Assessment teachers
  • AT Selection Process
  • 28 agree that AT is properly considered in IEP
    meetings (15 disagree)
  • 35 agree that parents and students have an
    active role in the evaluation and selection of AT
    devices (9.9 disagree)
  • Only 15 agree that AT assessment,
    recommendation, trial, and implementation process
    occurs in a timely manner (17.2 disagree)

25
Survey Results - Teachers
  • AT Understanding
  • I know how to use AT for students with
  • Visual Disabilities 12.5 agree
  • Communication Disabilities 17.5 agree
  • Physical Disabilities 17.9 agree
  • Hearing Disabilities 23.5 agree
  • Cognitive/Learning Disabilities 29.2 agree
  • 22.1 indicate that they understand the
    difference between low, mid, and high tech AT
    (51.6 disagree)

26
Survey Results - Teachers
  • AT Implementation
  • Only 16.9 agree that they effectively integrate
    AT into the classroom (37.7 disagree)
  • 39 indicated that they understand their role
    during the AT service provision process (40.3
    disagree)
  • Only 19 indicated that they know about their
    schools formal policies or guidelines as they
    relate to AT services
  • Follow-up
  • Only 18 agree that AT cases receive effective
    follow up (17.4 disagree)

27
Survey Results - Teachers
  • Universal Design for Learning
  • 51.5 indicated they did not understand UDL
    principles
  • 10.1 agree that they incorporate UDL in the
    class (50.5 disagree)
  • Accessible Instructional Materials
  • Only 21.2 agree that they understand what
    qualifies as AIM

28
Survey Results - Teachers
  • Funding
  • 21 of the teachers agree that cost is the
    primary factor when choosing AT.
  • 29.7 agree that the school lacks adequate AT
    funding (59.7 neutral)
  • Satisfaction (Personal and Perceived)
  • Only 15 of teachers indicated that they are
    dissatisfied with the work of the AEA-AT team
    (64 neutral)
  • 18 suggested that parents seem satisfied with
    how AT services are provided in schools. (76
    neutral)

29
Survey Results AT Professionals
  • N 53
  • 96.2 reported receiving AT training through
    professional conferences or colloquia
  • During the past 5 years AT Professionals have
    obtained an average of 23.28 hours in AT
    continuing education
  • Only 7.7 of the participants indicated having an
    AT related certification endorsed by RESNA (e.g.
    ATP, ATS, RET).

30
Assistive Technology Professionals
31
Survey Results AT Professionals
  • AT Selection Process
  • 43.2 agree that AT is properly considered in IEP
    meetings
  • 76.5 agreed that parents and students have an
    active role in the evaluation and selection of AT
    devices
  • 56.9 agree that the AT assessment,
    recommendation, trial, and implementation process
    occurs in a timely manner
  • 56 agree that AT cases receive effective follow
    up is provided.

32
Survey Results AT Professionals
  • Roles and Policy
  • 60.7 of AT professionals indicated that their
    AEAs has formal operational policies and
    procedures to provide AT services
  • Only 17 indicated that there is a lack of
    coordination between AEAs and schools who need AT
    services
  • 77 of the participants indicated that they do
    not collaborate or communicate with other AEAs
    regarding AT services

33
Survey Results AT Professionals
  • Implementation
  • 39 perceived that teachers in the schools they
    served are prepared to use AT in the classroom
  • 55 indicated that teachers do not integrate AT
    effectively into the classroom
  • However, 58.9 indicated that the schools offer
    AT training to teachers

34
Survey Results AT Professionals
  • Funding
  • 58 disagreed that cost is the primary
    consideration when providing AT services to
    students with disabilities
  • 37.3 indicated that their schools/districts lack
    adequate AT funding
  • 58.8 of the participants indicated that their
    AEA has an effective collection of demonstration
    collection of AT software and devices.

35
Survey Results AT Professionals
  • Satisfaction (Personal and Perceived)
  • 55 of were satisfied with the services provided
    by their AT team
  • 72 perceived students were satisfied with
    services provided by the AT team
  • 52.9 perceived schools were satisfied with the
    services provided by the AT team
  • 56.9 perceived parents as satisfied with the
    services provided by the AT team
  • 82 of the AT professionals indicated that
    students demonstrate improved academic
    achievement after receiving AT

36
Survey Results - Parents
  • N 56
  • 22 parents indicated a personal investment that
    ranged between 30 and 10,000 with a mean of
    1,291.25 on AT devices.
  • Other parents indicated that they have invested a
    lot, yet had not kept track of how much they had
    spent.

37
Survey Results - Parents
  • AT Selection and Process
  • 57.1 agreed that AT is sufficiently considered
    in IEP meetings
  • Only 30.4 of the parents indicated they had been
    active members on the selection of an AT device
    during IEP meetings
  • 49 indicated that their child received their AT
    device in a timely manner
  • 51 indicated that their child used the acquired
    AT device effectively in the school setting

38
Survey Results - Parents
  • Impact on Student
  • 63.6 of the participants indicated seeing
    improvement in their childs academic achievement
  • 69 perceived AT as having a positive effect on
    their childs self-esteem

39
Survey Results - Parents
  • Knowledge (Personal and Perceived)
  • 60 indicated being able to help their child use
    their AT effectively at home
  • 53 indicated knowledge of resources to identify
    information regarding AT
  • Only 32, however, indicated seeking consultation
    from resources outside of the school system
  • 41.8 agreed that school personnel does not seem
    adequately prepared on AT issues

40
Survey Results - Parents
  • Funding
  • 34 of the parents surveyed agreed that their
    childs school had inadequate funding for AT
  • 52.8 perceived that cost was the schools main
    determining factor when purchasing AT devices
  • Satisfaction
  • 41.9 were dissatisfied with the system the
    school has in place for the evaluation,
    selection, and training of AT
  • Only 38 were satisfied with AT training
    available for parents and students

41
Open-Ended Questions
  • In your opinion, what are some of the issues
    negatively impacting AT service and provision in
    your school?
  • In your opinion, what are the most positive
    aspects of AT service provided in your school?
  • What are your AT training, support and resource
    needs?
  • What obstacles do you encounter when attempting
    to provide quality AT service in the schools you
    serve?

42
Focus Groups - Logistics
  • Sessions
  • 8 Total (3 via video conference 5 in person)
  • 6 AEA AT Professionals
  • 1 School District
  • 1 Administrator group
  • Participants ranged from 2 to 13
  • Time 55 75 minutes

43
Focus Groups - Analysis
  • Focus group sessions were transcribed
  • Two analysts looked at the transcripts and
    created a set of themes that they viewed
  • After measuring the agreement of their themes,
    they went back and counted occurrences of each
    theme

44
Focus Group Results - Emerging Topics
  • Technology/Equipment
  • Training/ Knowledge
  • Roles
  • Support Staff/ Process
  • Organizational process and data
  • Equity and Access
  • Information Technology Obsolescence
  • Teacher Acceptance
  • Funding
  • Time

45
Focus Group Results - Emerging Topics
  • Many issues that need further investigation
    emerged from the focus groups that were not
    conveyed in the surveys
  • IT professionals as barriers to use
  • Paraprofessionals as barriers to use
  • Obsolete standard technology as a barrier to use
  • Social aspect of AT can be an issue for students

46
Previous Needs Assessment Conclusions (1990)
  • Need more awareness regarding benefits of AT
  • Need for a central source of AT information
  • Need AT training for education professionals
  • Need clarity on coordination and development of
    comprehensive AT services
  • No satisfaction or other program evaluation data
    was reported or known to be collected

47
Previous Needs Assessment Conclusions (2000)
  • Results were not clear on level of knowledge of
    concepts related to AT (e.g. legal requirements,
    AT applications)
  • Funding was identified as barrier to provision of
    adequate AT services
  • Parents were dissatisfied with AT services,
    support, and follow up
  • AT teams, established in 1990, were thought to be
    working at highest level

48
Previous Needs Assessment Conclusions (2000)
  • Various system-related issues were identified
  • Need more clear outcomes and their relation to
    funding
  • Need for better understanding among and between
    systems (agencies) as related to coordination and
    development of services
  • Teachers need to receive adequate training on AT
  • Need for more inclusion of AT into curriculum and
    development of awareness of student as stakeholder

49
The Current Status of AT in Iowa
  • 2009 Positive or Improved Areas
  • Significant increase of awareness on how AT can
    affect a student with a disability including
    areas such as academic achievement, self esteem,
    and socialization
  • Increased visibility of a support group in the
    provision of AT services (AT Professionals)
  • Increased awareness on where to get information
    regarding AT (e.g. AT groups listserv)
  • Lending library is a great resource to keep up
    AT skills and facilitate assessment, trial, and
    recommendation of AT equipment

50
The Current Status of AT in Iowa
  • 2009 Positive or Improved Areas
  • Satisfaction with AT professionals is in the
    moderate to high category
  • Training requests from AT Professionals are on
    high demand
  • AT Professionals are introducing AT into the
    general education classroom. This serves to keep
    teachers more aware of AT issues and avoids the
    standing out experience of students with
    disabilities

51
The Current Status of AT in Iowa
  • 2009 Areas of Needed Improvement
  • Need more current and frequent training/capacity
    building at a local level
  • AT Professionals need training to keep up with
    new technologies
  • Teachers were identified as most in need
  • Need to also include paraprofessionals and
    teaching assistants in AT trainings
  • Follow up after provision of services should be
    emphasized in AT trainings
  • Administrative issues
  • Training involvement of time, staff, and
    financial resources

52
The Current Status of AT in Iowa
  • 2009 Areas of Improvement or Needs
  • Systemic issues
  • AT services are not provided uniformly across the
    State.
  • Limited coordination or collaboration between
    subsystems
  • Roles of stakeholders need to be clarified,
    especially of teachers, IT and other support
    staff
  • Emphasis on students as stakeholders

53
The Current Status of AT in Iowa
  • 2009 Areas of Improvement or Needs
  • Need to clarify perception of funding in relation
    to the provision of AT services
  • The bulk of responses suggested that funding is
    not a major concern, but also that their schools
    did not have adequate funding for AT and this
    affect services

54
Limitations
  • No students were surveyed
  • No direct access to parents or teachers
  • Unaware how many actually received the survey
    through indirect distribution
  • People could have potentially entered data
    multiple times
  • Direct distribution list may have had inaccuracies

55
Limitations
  • The neutral option was likely interpreted in
    different ways by different people
  • Did not reach the farthest west AEAs with focus
    groups
  • Limited contact with administrators and teachers
    limited the ability to conduct groups with them
  • Potential researcher-based errors in the
    management, analysis, or interpretation of a big
    data set like the one generated in this study.

56
Potential for Larger Impact
  • Although Iowa is a small state (pop. 3,000,000)
    many part are similar to parts of other states,
    thus results may help describe AT issues
    elsewhere
  • Many small rural schools
  • Large districts in suburban areas around Des
    Moines and Cedar Rapids
  • Moderately sized college town ( Iowa City and
    Ames)
  • Urban Areas (Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Davenport)
  • This can also be a model for carrying out large
    scale needs assessments

57
Statewide Collaboration
  • Such a large project isnt possible without
    collaboration such as
  • Funding from the University of Iowa
  • Backing from AT Coordinator at Iowa Department of
    Education
  • Support in creating and disseminating surveys
    from statewide AT Liaisons group
  • Support from state director of Parent Educator
    Partnership
  • Support disseminating parent and student surveys
    from Parent Educator Partnership in each AEA

58
Questions and Comments
  • For more information regarding ICATER and our
    projects, please contact us!
  • James R. Stachowiak, MSE, ATP CoordinatorThe
    University of IowaCollege of EducationN168
    Lindquist CenterIowa City, Iowa 52242-1529
  • http//www.education.uiowa.edu/icater
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com