ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 8
AssistiveTechnology, Literature Review
AssistiveTechnology, Literature Review
Mostindividuals prefer assistive technology (AT) device to organize theprocedures of planning and advance the functionality of the disabledpersons. In cases of infants, the machines are of low technology andneed minimal training. Parette and Brotherson (2004) asserted thatthe AT decision making concerning stigma encompass expectation ofparents, AT utilization visibilitiesamong infants with disability as users, andthe perspectives of the inability of children to display fundamentaldevelopment skills. The paper, therefore, undertakes a literaturereview on the cultural utilization of assistive technology as well asAT and stigma.
Cultureand the Use of Assistive Technology
Parette& Brotherson (2004) recommended family assessment analysis as themajor way of analyzing infants with disabilities as well as theirfamilies, but the primary challenge comes from diversities incultural origins. Most individuals, therefore, prefer AT device tocoordinate the processes of planning to improve the functionality ofthe disabled persons, and in cases infants, the machines are of lowtechnology and need minimal training. On the other hand, electronicdevices for communication, computers, and control systems regardingthe environment may also get applied on the toddlers. There are alsoAT services, and they focus on the analysis of the needs andcustomary surrounding of a child, acquisition procedures for the ATequipment, selecting and designing the AT devices and lastlycoordinating the therapies
Besides,in decision-making processes regarding AT, people from ethnicbackgrounds like Africa, Asian Americans, and Hispanics display lessparticipation. Such scenario may lead to an inappropriate selectionof AT as a result of limited consideration of cultural diversityduring the decision-making processes concerning the device design anduse. According to Jones & Hinnesmon (2014), an all-inclusivefamily-centered AT decision-making should encompass thecharacteristics of a child, issues of the family, features of thetechnology, for example, cost, training requirements, andcoordination need.
SpecialIssue on Culture and Diversity in AT
Aspecial education journal documented by Asthon, Hine & Hall(2000) clarified that the cultural worldview of a person getsinfluenced by ethnic gender, age geography, and disability group, forexample, perceptions, behavior, and expectations. Ashton et al.(2000) also considered digital devices regarding an AT, specificallythe use of CPUs and internet schemes as very influential with respectto culture. Thus, reflecting the divide between the comprehension ofthe contemporary technology and the availability of such technicalconsiderationcannot be overwritten.
Parette(2005) also gave an analysis of the cultural and diversity findingsfor approximately four consecutive years by utilizing the approach ofEdyburn and assessed four hundred and three papers using the rural,race, family and gender. Out of the numerous research works, barelynineteen reviews were in line with the criteria for AT utilization,there was a need to formulate a professional design that enhancescultural practices, knowledge, and awareness. The interesting partwas that there was limited focus on the culturally diverse activitiesfrom different generations and that influenced the dissemination ofAT services.
Furthermore,in the review of public schools’ AT processes of planning, thelargest blocks encompassed elements like knowledge, skills, andattitudes which involved both the professionals and family members(Parette, 2005). Another discussed concept was the dynamics ofpractitioners’ viewpoints and awareness increment levels concerningcultural matters and AT aspects due to the utilization of familycultures education, AAC as well as CD-ROM in higher learninginstitutions. Moreover, CD was an inclusive, innovative technologythat was vital in cultural awareness and processes of decisionmaking, and embraced the time sensitivity necessary in engaging thedocument. However, Ripat & Woodgate (2011) argued that studentswho utilized the CD without adding other concepts of educationexperienced limited educational advantages compared to the personswho could access the internet.
ATand Disability Cultural Intersection
Itmajorly concerned individuals who used AT, but it took place in anextended social and cultural setup, therefore, the author of thearticle, Ripat & Woodgate (2011), aimed to examine thecontemporary understanding of the cultural intersection of disabilityand AT. Ripat & Woodgate (2011) literature review assessed thecultural elements of AT device as it gets applied to the disabledindividuals, and it identified people from different regions andprofessional experiences. The results revealed that the providers ofAT originated from a culture influenced by expertise, connectedbeliefs, behaviors surrounding the disability settings, and thevalues. According to Parette, Huer & Hourcade (2003), the reviewshowed that there was inadequate knowledge concerning the AT andCulture intersections, thus there was a need to do further researchwhich focuses on satisfying the requirement of individuals using AT.
AssistiveTechnology and Stigma
Issuesregarding stigma and the effects on AT were fundamental onindividuals that experienced instances of disabilities, even thoughthe analysis of such relationship started in the recent past whileoperating with cross-cultural families. Parette & Scherer (2004)asserted that the AT decision making concerning stigma encompassedexpectation of parents, AT utilization visibilities and theperspectives out coming from the inability of children to displayfundamental development skills. However, the non-existencereliability and validity results about the stated strategiesconfirmed the necessity of undertaking research with a view of theinfluence between AT and Stigma. The areas that had the potential tocause stigma included appropriateness of age, acceptability in thesociety, disability acceptance by the teachers and aesthetics
ATand CLD Students
Culturallyand Linguistic diverse (CLD) students are numerous than the generalpublic because most of them get access to special education, butresearcher claim that African Americans and Hispanics get limiteduse of the available technology. Parette et al. (2003) argued thatthe barriers included discrimination and prejudice, poor desiredresults from the utilization of an AT as well as the differencebetween the worldview of the professionals and the disabled families.Besides, the findings showed that the people from CLD origins utilizetechnologies at less regular rates, has no technologies at home andexperience constraint of budget from their income.
Inanother stance, Ripat & Woodgate (2011) claimed that thecomprehensions of the application of AT are appropriate for teamsthat have the desire to understand the requirements of CLD family asthey focus on perspectives, perceptions, and attitudes. Precisely,the preferences of the African-American groups are that they do notlike augmentative and alternative communication (ACC) in places wherethere are many people because they fear stigma. Asian-American alsoworks against stigmatization by claiming that community links shouldoffer AT assistance and training as opposed to instructed workforcesbecause the cultural value of CLD may be dissimilar with the IEPteam.
TeamFactor that Influence Coordination
Intheir quest to reach the maximum potential, students analyzeprocesses concerning the school structures to counteract consensuswhich may cause stigma, and such elements include mutual planning,specialist consideration as well as frameworks for research.Furthermore, IEP team may lead to bringing about desired expertisesince their diverse experiences encompass special education,information technology, counseling, and social works. NeverthelessAshton et al. (2000) believed that internal factors are the primarydeterminants on the way a disabled person could utilize AT. The keygoals of the assessment concern the most appropriate AT to promotethe capacity of students to operate on a universal setting ofeducation. Besides, the external features include physicalrequirements and environmental influences to favor the student,services, and the device, for example, space utilization, easy useand AT device portability.
Accordingto Ashton et al. (2000), professionals reduced stigma on the disabledstudents by considering both the internal and external factors asthey had the capability to enhance the powerful determinationcapability, students and family utilization as well asimplementation. Parette & Scherer (2014) asserted that the jigsawconcept is important in trail assistive technology path capacity ofchildren before it undergoes consequent implementation. The trailbasis should take the initiative to confirm the level of stigma ofthe families with cultural requirements which do match the AT deviceand services even if many external and internal communications gotconsiderations from within and outside the present setting.
Furthermore,the AT operation requirements focus on diverse aspects such asautonomy, empowerment, and life quality, and in which the teammembers accept results by the use of AT to improve writing, reading,and mathematical conceptualization. However, according to Parette(2005), the undoubted aspect that influences the considerationstrategies and the determination of IEP training desires to assessthe preferences a family includes as the cultural values.
Fromthe considerations above, it is envisaged that the providers of AToriginated from cultures influenced by expertise, connected beliefs,behaviors surrounding the disability settings, and the values.Moreover, the AT decision making concerning stigma encompass theexpectation of parents, AT utilization visibilities, and theperspectives out coming from the inability of children to displayfundamental development skills. It is, therefore, necessary fordifferent scholars to do more research on the connection between AT,culture, and the resultant stigma so that the diverse designers of ATcan aim at reducing ethnical barriers regarding technologyutilization among disabled persons.
Ashton,T. M., Hines, R. A., & Hall, K. (2000). Assistive Technology:Associate Editor`s Column.Journalof Special Education Technology, 15(4),37-39.
Jones,V. L., & Hinesmon-Matthews, L. J. (2014). Effective assistivetechnology consideration and implications for diversestudents. Computersin the Schools, 31(3),220-232.
Parette,H. P. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on culture anddiversity in assistive technology service delivery. Journalof Special Education Technology, 20(4),5-7.
Parette,H. P., & Brotherson, M. J. (2004). Family‐centeredand Culturally Responsive Assistive Technology DecisionMaking. Infants& Young Children, 17(4),355-367.
Parette,P., & Scherer, M. (2004). Assistive technology use andstigma. Educationand Training in Developmental Disabilities,12(3),217-226.
Parette,P., Huer, M. B., & Hourcade, J. J. (2003). Using assistivetechnology focus groups with families across cultures. Educationand training in developmental disabilities,13(4),429- 440.
Ripat,J., & Woodgate, R. (2011). The intersection of culture,disability and assistive technology. Disabilityand Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(2),87-96.