Things that typical students make take for granted are things that these students need to be able to function in a classroom. I think this brings up a great point about the difference between instructional technology and adaptive technology. The circumstance completely depends on what technology could qualify as and why. The first video Assistive Technology: Enabling Dreams, and the article that accompanied it drove this point home for me. The children featured in the film all had very positive attitudes and explained to viewers that if they didn't have technology, they would not be able to be participatory students. For example, the girl who is featured who has cerebral palsy, uses computers to record all of her assignments and submit oral work. What if she didn't have a computer? What if her mom didn't "know how to get around all the red tape?" She is lucky she has a mother like that, but we as teachers need to make it easier for students to be able to participate.
It reminds me of the interview between Dr. Paweleski and Dr. Keller. UDL is what we are striving for and has to be not only the ideal but the expectation. Children are already built with a drive and a desire to excel. When we look at Lukas, he still wanted to play the horn. He wanted to pursue it even after it was stolen. It its because of the good graces of his family and the amazing innovations of technology that he is still able to play the horn and play it well. I was particularly amazed by the man that made the horn because apparently his family has been making adaptive instruments for a very long time do to his grandfather's accident. But this pertains to our class because it makes me question, should the school have horns available like the one Lukas plays? Is that UDL? I understand it is expensive, but isn't that the law? Where should we draw the line?
Dr. Keller brought up an interesting point about hi and low tech technology. As technology advances he said, things that used to be considered high tech, are now low tech. It is all relative. Moreover, if we shouldn't need technology to have ideal UDL, why should we even be labeling things as high and low tech. In playing devil's advocate I guess, why is it necessary to classify things? I thought it was extremely amazing that he has a color identifier. It made me really curious as to how it works. It just makes me think that this form of what a person with sight would call adaptive technology is actually imperative or needed technology for him. It would be more than an accomodation in class if he were being taught because he would be fulfilled by the lesson that much more. I think we really need to think about classifying things.
Another thing we need to think about, as teachers, is believing in students. The video about "adapting classrooms" really made me feel bad at certain points. I could not believe students were actually saying that they were not even given a chance in activities such as P.E. This really breaks my heart. This is where UDL should be at least attempted more often. Students are excited to do P.E. and simply because they might not be sighted should not only not limit them from an activity but should not be told to them that this is the reason they cannot participate. How are we supposed to instill confidence and independence if it is all going to be retracted in activities like this? There was one boy in a wheelchair who said he could play football, basketball and every sport in his wheelchair. His teacher is making the neccesary accommodations. All teachers should do this.
Assitive technology and adaptive technology, no matter how you label them, even if we label them as instructional technology - they are ALL necessary! That is what the label should indicate. Children and students needs these, children of all abilities. This is what UDL is. This is what our job is as teachers, it is a given - to make the world and curriculum accessible to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment