Assistive Technology: The Key to Learner - Centered Education

Why We’re Here: Objectives

§ Describe key concepts of Learner Centered Education and research supporting its use.

§ Share strategies for meeting learner-centered objectives, using concepts of Learner Centered Education to integrate excellence in teaching with assistive and adaptive computing technologies.

§ Share ideas on how best to communicate the effectiveness of combining assistive technology and/or adaptive computing and learner-centered education.

Why Are YOU Here?

§ Quote from experienced adaptive computing technology provider

§ True for you? What have your experiences been with faculty and staff?

Faculty Members Who “Get It”

§ ACT Center’s effective collaboration with Dr. Greg Holliday, Director of MU’s Assessment & Consultation Clinic

§ PACE-IT Grant

§ Lisa A. Wright, PT, MEd

§ University of Missouri Department of Physical Therapy

§ Learner-Centered Task Force @ MU

Learner-Centered Education

§ Focus on learning vs. teaching

§ Problem-solving

§ Teacher as facilitator

§ Collaboration with peers

Principles of Learner-Centered Education

§ Varied instructional design

§ Flexibility

§ Recognition of importance of prior knowledge

§ Clear expectations & objectives

§ Awareness of and appreciation for varied rate of learning acquisition

§ Selectivity

§ Size & space for approach & use

§ Interactive learning

§ Treat students as human, equal, cultural beings

Adapted from Principles of Universal Design for Instruction

Scott, McGuire & Shaw, 2001.

Varied Instructional Design

§ Instruction is designed to be useful and accessible to all students. Alternating delivery of material taking into account the need for information to facilitate capacity of the brain to process information

§ Active learning

§ Hands-on

§ Peer led

§ Presentations with peers

Flexibility

§ Allows students options in use of instructional materials, testing, assignments, and in-class activities

Recognizes Importance of Prior Knowledge & Relation to Other Courses

§ Instruction is straightforward & eliminates unnecessary complexity. Explain concepts simply without assuming student has prior knowledge.

§ Pre-testing to assess prior knowledge, activating prior knowledge when introducing new knowledge. Overtly states areas of prior knowledge needed for class and provides means of accessing information and help to “catch up”.

Clear Expectations & Objectives

§ Necessary information is communicated clearly

§ Study guides and clear learning objectives are provided

Awareness Of & Appreciation for Varied Rate of Learning Acquisition

§ Instruction anticipates variation in individual learning pace

§ Give multiple examples from varied concepts and use variety of methods. Repetition and spaced retrieval of information over time, reinforcement of prior learning

Selectivity

§ Instruction selects core objectives and teaches from these

§ No reason for rote-memorization of non-essential information. Focus on core tasks rather than non-essential

Size and Space for Approach and Use

§ Classroom size, desks/tables, acoustics, and lighting accessible to all students

§ Instruction designed with consideration for students with varying body size, posture, mobility, sensory and communication needs.

Interactive Learning

§ Promotes purposeful interaction and communication between and among students/faculty

§ Group learning, peer teaching, group projects, problem-based learning tied to core course goals and objectives

Treat Students as Human, Equal, Cultural Beings

§ Instruction designed to be inclusive and respectful of cultural differences

§ Engage students outside of classroom, reveal human side; embrace equal people in different roles

Similarities w/Universal Design

§ Equitable Use: Useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

§ Flexibility in Use: Accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.

§ Simple and Intuitive Use: Easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

§ Perceptible Information: Communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities.

§ Tolerance for Error: Minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

§ Low-Physical Effort: Can be used efficiently and comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue.

§ Size and Space for Approach and Use: Appropriate size and space is provide for approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility.

Small Group Discussion:

§ How does assistive technology in general and adaptive computing technology in particular, relate to Learner Centered Education?

§ How can we communicate with faculty and teachers more effectively, now that we understand their perspective?

Conclusion:

§ Master list of LCT Principles and group ideas will be posted on conference website

References

§ Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education. Retrieved June 11, 2004.

§ DeVries, R., Zan, B., Hildebrandt, C., Edmiaston, R., & Sales, C. (2002). Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

§ Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research. 74(1), pp. 59-109.

§ Gwyn-Paquette, C. & Tochon, F. V. (2002). The role of reflective conversations and feedback in helping preservice teachers learn to use cooperative activities in their second language classrooms. [Electronic version]. The Modern Language Journal, 86(2), 204-226.

§ Horn, L., Berktold, J &. Bobbit, L. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation and outcomes. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

§ Learner-Centered Task Force (2003-2004). University of Missouri, Columbia.

§ Oberlander, J. & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2004). Using technology to support problem- based learning. Action Teaching in Education. 25(4), 48-57.

§ Pedersen, S. & Liu, M. (2002). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem- based learning environment: The effect of modeling an expert’s cognitive processes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 35(2), 303-320.

§ Scott, S., McGuire, J. & Shaw, S. (2001). Principles of Universal Design for Instruction. Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut.

§ Soloman, P. & Crowe, J. (2001). Perceptions of student peer tutors in a problem-based learning programme. [Electronic version]. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 181-186.

Contact Us

§ Lisa A. Wright, MEd, Faculty Member in the Physical Therapy Department
WrightLA@health.missouri.edu

§ Diana Ratliff, Web Accessibility Specialist, MU’s Adaptive Computing Technology Center
ratliffd@missouri.edu