Why is assistive technology not more common?

This week our topic was assistive technology (AT) and intentionality in technology enabled learning design. While reading through today’s topic I thought about why digital accessibility practices are not more commonly used.

We watched a video from the Edmonton Regional Learning Consortium about how technology can be used to support diverse student learning. Like some of the parents expressed in this video, many people are worried that technology is going to “replace” traditional reading and writing. But as the teacher explained, technology can be a bridge to help students gain the confidence and independence that they need to try other skills.  

The article Rethinking Assistive Technology lists 5 common misunderstandings about AT.

1. Using assistive technology is cheating 
2. Assistive technology is expensive 
3. Assistive technology is more work for the teacher 
4. Assistive technology for students with significant or severe disabilities 
5. Assistive technology can only be used in the classroom 

Number 3: “assistive technology is more work for the teacher” resonated with me as someone who is easily overwhelmed by technology and does not have a lot of experience using it. I have used AT myself as a student and as a teacher candidate, and have experienced how it can help create “less work” for me, however I don’t think that this is always the case. For example, I have found that most educators in our program do not offer Zoom as an option if students are unable to attend class. This is limiting for students who may be sick, injured, have accessibility challenges, or work better in a different environment. For educators, setting up a zoom meeting for every class and incorporating students who are attending class online into discussions and activities comes with its challenges. It may be more efficient to have classes entirely on zoom, however I personally learn better in an in-person environment, and some students may not have access to the appropriate technology to use Zoom, so providing a multitude of options to suit all different learners can be challenging. 

I recognize that there is learning for me to do in order to become more aware of what options are available, how they can fit into my teaching, and this will require time and effort. My teachable subject area is physical and health education (PHE). Accessibility is a topic we discuss often in PHE, but is mostly done with adapted games and/or equipment modifications, not through the use of technology. Incorporating AT into a PHE space is not something that I have any experience with, or have seen in schools. When I think of using AT in schools I imagine students on laptops or ipads, which as a PHE teacher is not how I believe their PHE block should be spent, and I can see how incorporating technology could be a distraction for students. I recognize that the opportunity to incorporate AT into a PHE class does exist and that AT does not only exist on the web. However, I do think there is a time cost for teachers associated with AT training. 

The Triple E Framework

I found the Triple E Framework is helpful in helping determine if a digital tool is helping students, or distracting them from the intended learning. This framework was developed by Dr. Liz Kolb at the University of Michigan. Below I have attached an image from our class notes that provides a visual representation of the triple E framework.