音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: SKIP NAVI GOTO NAVI

USING ELECTRONIC MEETING SOFTWARE AS A PLANNING TOOL FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY SERVICE DELIVERY TO INFANTS AND TODDLERS

Susan E. Garber Center for Technology in Education Johns Hopkins University / Maryland State Department of Education

Abstract

A focus group of infant and toddler service providers and administrators was convened to assist with statewide strategic planning for the provision of assistive technology devices and services in Maryland. The facilitator used electronic meeting software, or groupware, to capture participants' concerns as well as their proposed solutions to problems.

Participants were able to use several data formats to analyze the ranking of their top ten concerns. Subsequently they identified the role of each of the following in meeting their concerns: 1.) the Maryland Infants and Toddlers Program; 2.) their local jurisdiction's program; 3.) the Center for Technology in Education; and 4.) families. The results, efficiently gathered, can be utilized for program planning by all four groups.

Background

First in the nation, the Maryland Infants and Toddlers Program (MI&TP) began their assistive technology initiative in 1990 by contracting with the Center for Technology in Education to provide training and technical assistance. Statewide conference presentations, regional make it/ take it workshops, a summer seminar, and child-centered evaluation/training sessions formed the core of services CTE provided. Specific geographic regions were emphasized each year on a rotating basis to increase the depth of the training.

Electronic meeting software on a local area network is a recognized tool for decision support, originally used by the military and business. (1) (2) It is being used increasingly by the education community to improve decision-making and consensus building during school improvement team meetings and to build school improvement plans Electronic brainstorming provides a rapid means to generate a free flow of ideas as participants contribute simultaneously and anonymously. (3)

Objective

In 1995 MI&TP sought to evaluate the local state of the practice by soliciting information from local service providers and administrators. Their responses will help guide future planning in light of departmental reorganization and projected shrinking budgets.

Method/Approach

Invitations to the focus group were extended to persons or jurisdictions known to be providing services or with personnel adequately trained to provide such service if permitted/requested. Those who participated represented all four major geographic regions of the state. There were administrators as well as front-line service personnel, representing early intervention/ special education teachers, speech/language pathologists, and occupational and physical therapists. The parent perspective was also represented.

After introductory activities and an historical overview of the development of assistive technology services for this population, the facilitator posed the question electronically, "What are your major concerns about the provision of assistive technology devices and services to infants and toddlers with special needs?" Participants "brainstormed" independently on their networked computers. Responses were merged electronically into a master list of 24 items. Participants then ranked their top 10 most critical issues from the combined list. Items were subsequently sorted by rank sum, presented in descending order, and finally analyzed by number of votes in each rating. After discussion of the outcomes, participants were presented with the second major question, "What role do you see these providers playing in addressing your areas of concern?" Using another tool of the software called topic commenter, participants were presented with four electronic file folders to enter their opinions on the role of each of the following in meeting their concerns: 1.) the Maryland Infants and Toddlers Program; 2.) their local jurisdictions' programs; 3.) the Center for Technology in Education; and 4.) families. Through this tool, participants could not only identify potential solutions to their concerns, but could also identify the responsible parties from their perspective.

Results

The following were identified as the top 10 concerns (in descending order): 1.) insufficient funding; 2.) insufficient administrative support; 3.) limiting technology use to therapy time with insufficient follow-up across environments; 4.) the need for parent education to alleviate concerns about introducing technology at such an early age; 5.) interactive communication not being initiated early; 6.) insufficient training for family and school to use recommended equipment; 7.) computer technology not being introduced early enough for children with physical involvement; 8.) need for appropriate evaluation by trained personnel; 9.) need for more consultation between speech/language pathologists and educators; and 10.) insufficient time.

Participants perceived the role of the Maryland Infants and Toddlers Program in addressing these concerns to include: 1.) increase funding for devices, training for parents and professionals, and personnel 2.)recognize the time needed to prepare and provide A.T. services; 2.) establish better communication with all "players" to include clear guidelines with Part B programs to assure the continuation of A.T. services begun at the infant/toddler level; 4.) give good press to counties that show effective practices and offer incentive mini-grants to encourage the use of assistive technology; 5.) continue to use CTE to offer help/support/new ideas to the jurisdictions; 6.) work with the Maryland State Department of Education to establish regional CTE centers; 7.) provide jurisdictions with a list of persons qualified to do A.T. evaluations for this population; and 8.) evaluate whether the state's Tech Act Program is an effective resource in rural areas and make recommendations for improvement.

Participants perceived the role of the local jurisdictions' Infants and Toddlers Programs in addressing these concerns to include: 1.) consider assistive technology needs at every child's IFSP meeting; 2.) provide a "technology team" time to do evaluations; 3.) provide equipment with which to evaluate children; 4.) release service providers to attend inservice training; 5.) involve all aspects of the community (parents, families, school administrators, educators, local law makers) in education about the application of assistive technology to the infant/toddler population; 6.) house, circulate, and maintain devices for long-term loan; 7.) have a "bank" of software with site licenses; 8.) provide local funding support; 9.) identify sources of private funding for programs and families and assist them with writing grants; and 10.) document device use and success..Participants perceived the role of the Center for Technology in Education in addressing these concerns to include: 1.)provide trainings and make & takes for parents and professionals; 2.) travel to local jurisdictions to conduct evaluations of infants and toddlers; 3.) assist the local "techno-rangers" in the state by keeping them informed of new equipment, software, techniques, etc.; 4.) facilitate networking among local providers and administrators by holding forums to address constantly changes aspects; 5.) loan devices for trial use; 6.) help families seek funding for devices; 7.) conduct research and/or evaluation of device success/failure; 8.) consult on individual family and/or service coordinator's concerns; and 9.) make vendors and materials available to save local people time.

Participants perceived the role of families in addressing these concerns to include: 1.) become more proactive in establishing a forum for other families in their communities to become more involved in educating and empowering each other for ways to deal with issues concerning assistive technology; 2.) become as knowledgeable as possible by seeking information, attending meetings, seminars, etc.; 3.) be a part of the team: work as partners, not adversaries; 4.) use the strategies and devices provided to reinforce at home; 5.) take care of devices and return them in good condition at the end of a loan period; 6.) be open minded and flexible in considering options for the child; 7.) share concerns/breakthroughs with service provider and coordinator; 8.) lobby the state legislature for technology funding and 9.) seek means of acquiring devices they can own.

Discussion

Certain themes developed in all responses: the need for increased funding from multiple sources; the need for more training opportunities; the need for qualified evaluators; the need for a system for loaning devices; and the need to involve many "players" to assure the delivery of quality services.

Groupware helps groups communicate honestly and anonymously in a time efficient manner. In only a few hours participants were able to provide valuable information that can assist both the state and local programs in their planning. It is unlikely that traditional forums or surveys could have yielded the same results. Since each local jurisdiction received a Macintosh with modem from the state agency it is conceivable that future focus groups could be conducted without gathering the participants in a single location.

References

1. Nunamaker Jr., J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D.R., and George, J.F. "Electronic Communication to Support Group Work." Communications of the ACM, 34,7,1991,40-61.

2. Connoley, T., Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S. "Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups." Management Science, 36, 6, 1990, 689-703.

3. Diehl, M., and Streebe, W. "Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 3, 1987, 497-509.

Acknowledgment

This work was funded by the Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families'/ Maryland Infants and Toddlers Program.

Susan E. Garber Center for Technology in Education 2500 East Northern Parkway Baltimore, MD 21214 (410) 254-8466