Taxonomy for Classifying Writing Devices Used by Students with Learning Disabilities

Carol H. Olson
University of Mary, Bismarck, ND and
the Rehabilitation Research Design & Disability (R 2 D 2 ) Center,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI

ABSTRACT

Students with learning disabilities use various assistive technology devices as part of their specially designed instruction or modifications within the school setting under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Categorizing these devices is difficult due to the range of devices available and the multiple purposes of many of the devices. This study analyzed the devices used by students with learning disabilities in a midwestern state who had a need in writing. These students were able to procure the devices due to a large federal and state grant. This analysis described the methods used to categorize the devices used and the final frequencies of those categories as part of a larger study to examine the outcomes of these devices.

KEYWORDS

Assistive technology, learning disabilities, outcome measures

BACKGROUND

An assistive technology (AT) device is defined in the Assistive Technology Act (AT Act) of 1998 (PL 105-394) as "any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities" (Sec. 3. 29 3002, Definition 3). Assistive technology is used to increase an individual's ability to complete life tasks such as self care and care of others, education, work/productivity, play, leisure, and social participation. In the educational setting, assistive technology devices and services are an integral part of special education or "specially-designed instruction" which is adapting the methods, content, or means of content delivery of instruction to meet a child's individual needs so that child is able to access and progress in the general education curriculum (PL 105-17).

In 2001, a midwestern state was granted 9.4 million dollars to provide assistive technology to students in the state who needed it. It was called the Assistive Technology Infusion Project (ATIP). As part of the ATIP, the Assistive Technology Outcomes Measurement System (ATOMS) was contracted to develop an application as well as outcome measurement tools (1). On the application and assessments, primary disability was reported using one of thirteen primary disability areas identified by IDEA and reported on students' Individualized Education Plans (IEP), and need areas were chosen from six primary categories with up to five subcategories in each. Learning Disability was one of the primary disability areas and writing was one of the academic need areas.

When looking for or categorizing AT devices, there are many ways to search, such as by product name, product type, disability type, product type, or by vendor (2). Many general categories of AT are also described in several studies. Others describe categories based on purpose of device, such as mobility, hearing and vision, communication, home adaptation, and environmental control (3). Raskind described various technologies for persons with learning difficulties, particularly in the need of written language. These were listed as: word processors, spell checkers, proofreading programs, outlining/brainstorming programs, speech recognition, speech synthesis/screen review, word prediction programs, and alternative keyboards (4). Using these terms, many devices could be classified in several categories, however. Abledata also lists a taxonomy for indexing devices. These are listed by the product's function or available features (2). Although the predetermined categories are helpful, they are not mutually exclusive; many devices are multipurpose. For example, one device, Intellitools' Intellitalk II, could be used for authoring, proofreading or speech synthesis/screen review; it could also be used with an alternative keyboard. When this device is requested, it is difficult to determine the best category to put it in, since it's function depends on how it will be used.

RESEARCH QUESTION

This study focused on categories of AT devices used by students with learning disabilities (LD) and a need in the academic area of writing who received AT through the Assistive Technology Infusion Project (ATIP). Categorizing AT devices for practical database application (e.g. finding equipment) and for outcomes research is an essential and involved study in itself: taxonomic research (5). This leads to the question, "What is the best taxonomy and categorization scheme for AT devices used for writing?" The process used to code writing devices and their categorization validated by the resultant frequencies of devices in each of these categories are described.

METHOD

Of all the data collected through the ATIP, data for students with LD and a need in writing were disaggregated, and analyses were conducted on this subcategory (n = 166). Prior to determining frequencies of AT devices used by these students, it was necessary to develop a consistent method of categorization. This was completed by looking at several taxonomies, and deciding on which made the most sense based on the content of the database. Because of the multiplicity of many of the devices, this researcher first attempted to categorize devices using pre-existing categories. Since the items requested did not fit into these categories, additional methods were attempted. A panel of experts, including a collaborating team from the R 2 D 2 Center, provided consultation to complicate the process. Many diverse taxonomies and processes for categorization were suggested. An attempt was made to identify devices by their function, such as idea generation, idea organization, letter, word, and sentence construction, proofreading, and word, sentence, and concept repair. An attempt was also made to look at device features, such as portability, speech output, graphics, large print, and non-letter symbology. Again, the devices requested still fit into several categories for both of these endeavors. Working from the opposite vantage point, by listing each device requested and then identifying features and functions was also considered, however, this was rejected because too many categories were identified. In the final deliberation, although there was still some overlap in categorization. The successful categorization strategy concluded with key topics under main headings of hardware, software, and an "other" category.

When the categorization process was established, each item requested was identified by that category. Frequencies of the device categories were then tallied by analysis on a statistical program.

RESULTS

Figure One: Frequencies of AT Devices Requested Through ATIP (Click image for larger view)

The taxonomy selected for categorization included several topics related to the writing process under the main headings of "hardware", "software", and "other" devices. These categories and examples of items included are listed in Table 1. There were 166 completed requests with 413 total items requested. Frequency data for the various device categories indicated that the most commonly requested items for students with LD and a need in writing were 1) Software: Word Prediction (63) and Hardware: Word processor: Computer: Laptop (52). For a graph of all device categories and their frequencies, (Figure 1).

DISCUSSION

The process of identifying a taxonomy for categorization of AT devices reflects the field of taxonomic research. The eventual taxonomy was designed (and validated by frequency counts) for its ability to be expanded or contracted for various levels of analysis for this project. However, several of the other taxonomies would also provide very pertinent information for AT outcomes analysis. It is recommended that a consistent, usable, multilayered taxonomy be accepted by the AT field for ease in categorization of AT devices and for AT outcome analysis.

REFERENCES

1. Fennema-Jansen, S. A. (2004). Technical report-The assistive technology infusion project (ATIP) database (1.0). Retrieved, from the World Wide Web: http://www.uwm.edu/CHS/atoms/activities/ .
2. The Guide to ABLEDATA Indexing Terms . (2005). Silver Spring, Maryland, Macro International, Inc.
3. Wehmeyer, M.L. (1998). National Survey of the Use of Assistive Technology by Adults with Mental Retardation. Mental Retardation 36 (1), 44-51
4. Raskind, M. (2000). Assistive Technology for Children with Learning Difficulties . San Mateo, CA: Schwab Foundation for Learning.
5. Bailey, K.D., (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ATOMS Project at the R 2 D 2 Center and this work are supported in part by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), grant number H133A010403. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIDRR and the U.S. Department of Education.

Author Contact Information:

Carol Olson, PhD(c), OTR/L
University of Mary
Department of Occupational Therapy
7500 University Dr.
Bismarck, ND 58504
Office Phone (701) 355-8156
E-Mail: olsonc@umary.edu