Millennial Students with Mild Disabilities and ... - SAGE Journals

Journal of Special Education Technology

Millennial Students with Mild Disabilities and Emerging Assistive Technology Trends GEORGE R. PETERSON-KARLAN PHIL PARETTE Illinois State University While the culture of typical Millennial students, those born after 1978-82, is increasingly recognized as being different from previous generations, particularly with regard to how technology is perceived and used, relatively little is known regarding whether these same characteristics are exhibited by students with mild disabilities. This article explores three cultural dimensions of technology-use patterns by Millennial students having particular relevance to students with mild disabilities: (a) comfort with technology, (b) connectivity to the world, and (c) technology as a tool for learning. An argument is presented that current education professionals who must now consider assistive technology (AT) for these students, know little about their preferences for, choices among, and usage of common non-school technologies that may have substantive implications for AT service delivery. One of the greatest challenges to education professionals in our contemporary society is how to afford all students, both with and without disabilities, the opportunity to develop and learn. To most effectively facilitate student learning in general education classrooms, education professionals must pay attention to the knowledge and beliefs that children bring to the educational milieu (Oblinger, 2003; Oblinger & Oblinger, 1999-2005). Such knowledge and beliefs are deeply embedded in culture, and affect the way in which students view the education system, health care, child rearing, communication styles, and other aspects of life in the U.S. (Lynch & Hanson, 1997; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2002). It also important that education professionals understand their own knowledge and belief systems if they are to effectively work with diverse groups of children (Miraglia, Law, & Collins, 1999; Lynch, 1997). While the importance of understanding culture has been addressed for many years in special education forums (Baca & Cervantes, 1989; Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989; Cummins, 1991; Lynch & Hanson, 1997; Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999), more recent discussions have focused on cultural issues and their impact on assistive technology (AT) service delivery (Parette, Huer, & VanBiervliet, 2005; Parette, Hourcade, & Huer, 2003; Parette & Petch-Hogan, 2000; Soto, 2000; Soto, Huer, & Taylor, 1997). The need to understand cultural issues within the context of AT service delivery was succinctly noted by Parette et al. (2005): It is unreasonable to assume that any professional will ever be able to completely understand the myriad influences, including cultural, that affect a particular

individual with a disability and his or her family at a point in time when AT is being considered by a team. The real challenge for professionals is to consider as many potential influences as possible [emphasis added] during the AT decision-making process and to make informed decisions based on careful examination of these influences. (p. 98) Understanding the plethora of cultural influences that can impact AT decision-making can be a daunting challenge, even though decision-making frameworks have been widely used to assist in these processes (e.g., Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 2004; Zabala, 1998). Compounding this challenge of understanding the cultural values of children with disabilities and making informed decisions regarding AT was the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment of 1997 (IDEA ‘97). This legislation imposed the responsibility on education professionals to consider AT for more than two million students with mild disabilities when developing their individual education programs (IEPs) [§1414(d)(3)(B)(iv)]. Whereas education professionals had previously become accustomed to AT decision-making for children with low incidence disabilities (i.e., hearing impairments, visual impairments, and physical disabilities) and understood their technology needs relatively well, these same education professionals are often less familiar with making decisions about AT solutions for children with mild disabilities. Recent reauthorization of the IDEA ’97 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R. 1350) expanded the potential of AT to impact education service delivery for

Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(4), Fall 2005

27

Journal of Special Education Technology

students with mild disabilities by emphasizing access to the general education curriculum (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 1999-2004). The importance of effective AT decision-making becomes even more substantive in light of the achievement emphasis of the No Child Left Behind Act of 1991 (P. L. 107-110), and the dramatic increase in the numbers of students with mild disabilities being served in general education settings (Edyburn, 2000; Microsoft Corporation, n.d.). For students with mild disabilities, to understand the impact of culture on AT consideration, it may be necessary to go beyond the influence of ethnicity to the larger context of youth, technology, and media culture. Studies have shown that today’s children are quite different with regard to their use and expectations of various types of technologies than previous generations (Oblinger, 2003; Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2005; Riemer-Reiss & Wacker, 1999). These children, often referred to as Digital Children (Edyburn, 2002), the Net Generation/N-Gens, (Oblinger & Oblinger, 1999-2005; Tapscott, 1998), or Millennials (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Miller & Norton, 2003; Mosier, 2001; Raines, 2001), differ from earlier generations such as Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. They have been described as being confident, hopeful, achievement-oriented, civic-minded, and inclusive (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Mask, 2001; Raines, 2001; Tapscott, 1998), and demonstrate differences with regard to the way in which technology is perceived and used. Millennials have grown up in a technology-rich world that currently includes a range of popular technologies such as DVD players, high definition television, MP3 players, cell phones, high-speed Internet connectivity, and other technologies (Parette, 2004; PetersonKarlan & Parette, 2005; Woodard, Emory, & Gridina, 2000). Information technologies are being used by school-age children with increasing frequency (DeBell & Chapman, 2001; Fallows, 2004; Levin & Arafeh, 2002). Conn (cited in Tapscott, 1998) has observed that technology for this generation “is like the air” (p. 39), that is, Millennial children are so exposed to and comfortable with technology that it’s transparent to them and a completely accepted part of their lives. This student attitude about technology was more recently noted in the U. S. Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2004): “We have technology in our blood” (p. 10). One has but to examine statistics presented by a national examination of middle school children’s exposure to media (Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999) to grasp why these children feel that technology is in their blood. In this study it was reported that 99% of middle school children had a television, 97% had a VCR, 96% had an audio system, 82% had a video game player, 74% had a satellite TV connection, and 69% had a computer. In another study that examined technology use among seventh and eighth graders in a Midwestern community, 88% reported having cable or satellite TV, 92% 28

reported having a DVD player, and 50% reported having more than one computer in the home (Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2005). Recent studies of college students have shown that 80% of Millennial students now have cell phones (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2004). A perusal of discussion boards regarding MP3 and CD player usage in the public schools reflects the popularity of such technologies in school (see e.g., Tingilinde, 2005; WorthWaiting For, 2004). Similarly, vendors of technology devices have noted the technology use patterns and preferences of Millennials (Manila Bulletin, 2001), with projections being made regarding sales based on these needs and preferences. As observed by CNNMoney (Cable News Network, 2005), “Personal computers, MP3 players, digital cameras have all become a critical component of a student's back-to-school survival gear.” Unfortunately, little is known regarding the extent to which the technology characteristics and use patterns demonstrated by Millennial students without disabilities are also characteristic of students with mild disabilities in today’s classrooms. Such a gap in our understanding is glaring in light of the widespread acknowledgement that AT holds great potential for these students (Behrmann & Jerome, 2002; Behrmann & Schaff, 2001; Curtis, 2005; Day & Edwards, 1996; Edyburn, 2000, 2004; Parette & Wojcik, 2004; Puckett, 2004; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Friedman (2004), for example, reporting on a sample of 53 school-age children with cognitive disabilities, noted a wide array of technologies used by the students, including computers (85%), video games (79%), telephones (76%), Internet (59%), e-mail (43%), cell phones (32%), and electronic organizers (11%). Surprisingly, when asked what strategies/technologies were used for specific tasks related to school, less frequent use of devices were reported, paralleling studies that have been conducted with typical peers (Bernt, Bernt, & Turner, 2003). Reports have noted, however, that children with disabilities are being influenced by and expecting technology to a greater extent in public school settings (Lahm & Sizemore, 2002; Parette, Huer, & Scherer, 2004; Parette & Peterson-Karlan, 2005). Such data suggest the need to address several questions if education professionals are to most effectively participate in AT decision-making with Millennial children with disabilities: 1. To what extent are Millennial students with disabilities similar to their typical peers with regard to technology use patterns and preferences? 2. If differences exist, what are they and what are the implications for education professionals? The remainder of this paper will examine technologyrelated characteristics of Millennial children (i.e., born after 1978-1982) that have been reported in the literature, and explore the extent to which these Millennial Students with Disabilities

Journal of Special Education Technology

characteristics have relevance to AT decision-making for students with mild disabilities. Millennial Student Technology Use Characteristics Sadly, technology usage in contemporary schools has not kept pace with the tremendous increases in consumer usage of and reliance on a wide range of available technologies in the marketplace (Hofer, Chamberlain, & Scot, 2004). In schools that use technology in classrooms, positive effects on learning have been demonstrated (Keiman, 2004; Schofeld, 1995; Woodward & Cuban, 2001). Millennial students use technologies differently in and outside of schools, and it is often noted that students are unsatisfied with the level of comfort with technology demonstrated by education professionals (Parette, 2004; Parette & Peterson-Karlan, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). As observed by one college Millennial student with a learning disability: …teachers now, the older ones are a little bit…more hesitant about using technology because they are not really sure about how to use it or go about it, whereas the younger ones and the ones that have just come out of college, and are fresh and know what’s going on, they are more comfortable using the technology in the classroom. (Parette, 2004) Comments from students participating in a U.S. Department of Education (2004) national study noted concerns about what schools should do to accommodate student preferences and comfort with technology. For example, a student observed that schools should, “Hire people to keep the computers running, give us more bandwidth and less firewall, enable hookups from home, give the teachers more training and give us more computer classes. We're also interested in ITV and online classes” (U. S. Department of Education, 2004). Similarly, representative comments from younger students included: I think that students should have laptops to do everything in class. We can type our homework, schoolwork, copy notes and things like that. We should not have to carry heavy books all day long and bring all of our books home. and, “I think that we (schools) could give technology classes to students and teachers because our teachers are falling behind the students, as they aren't good with computer programs and software.” (U. S. Department of Education). These observations highlight growing discrepancies regarding what students prefer and skills they bring to classroom settings, and what schools are willing to provide. Despite the difficulties of schools in keeping pace with the changing technology environment in the U.S., “all persons in our society are familiar with changing, or becoming acculturated to the wide range of technologies currently available” (Parette et al., 2004, p. 32). The degree to which Peterson-Karlan and Parette

people become acculturated to technology varies markedly, and is influenced by a range of factors (e.g., experiences, family values, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc.), though the substantive influence of generational factors on children’s technology usage cannot be ignored. As noted by a national AT consultant, “Perhaps the most important way in which students outpace teachers is that they are generally fearless about the use of computers because computers have been a part of their lives in much the same way that telephones have been a part of the lives of most teachers” (J. Zabala, personal communication, March 17, 2004). Despite these differences, public schools and colleges and universities are still faced with the challenge of aligning the perceived importance of AT with access, awareness, training, and usage (Michaels, Prezant, Morabito, & Jackson, 2002). Millennial students (who make up about 30% of the population, Leyden, 2004) have been reported to have a variety of technology-related characteristics (U. S. Department of Education, 2004), though whether these characteristics apply to students with disabilities has not been well-documented (see e.g., Friedman, 2004; Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2005). In the following sections, three characteristics will be explored that would seem most to most greatly impact the use of technology with Millennial students with mild disabilities. Comfort with technology. Millennial students have grown up in a world rich in technology complexity and availability (Bernt et al., 2003; Edyburn, 2002; Parette, 2004; Parette & Peterson-Karlan, 2005) and are very comfortable using technology (U. S. Department of Education, 2004). It may be that one of the major characteristics of the Millennial culture is their preoccupation with and use of technology in their daily lives. Evidence of the comfort in using technologies on public school and college campuses where students may be seen using cell phones between (and in) classes, using instant messaging at computer workstations, and listening to MP3 players. These students go to the movies and watch and listen to CDs and DVDs—presenting real people--to maintain their connectedness with content and people, versus reading books, newspapers, and other more traditional mechanisms for the delivery of information where connections with people are more removed. This level of comfort with, and expectations for technology use, is also reflected in the preferences demonstrated by students with regard to how they learn. As a Millennial college student with a learning disability noted: I know that I have been in a few classrooms that have…televisions in the classroom and with the whole class can, um, all look at the screen and look up information on the internet, do what they need to do. Also with tape players that we used to have, we now have CDs and ah, from VCR’s to DVD’s, things have just 29

Journal of Special Education Technology

completely changed to do a 180, whereas my parents are like, ah, are like having a much more difficult time doing, working with these things and knowing how to function them whereas I have grown up with them, and friends of mine, we have, it’s just easier to catch on. (Parette, 2004) One theme that recently emerged from a national study of K-12 students was that they not only use technology differently but are approaching their lives and their daily activities differently because of the technology (U. S. Department of Education, 2004). In a recent Canadian study, 16-year-olds reported use of technologies clustered into 4 domains, reflecting a continuum from highly-interactive to fixed information sources: “(a) personal communication: telephone, cell phone, and pager; (b) social communication: email, instant messaging, chat, and bulletin boards; (c) interactive environments: Web sites, search engines, and computers; and (d) unidirectional sources: television, radio, and print” (Skinner, Biscope, Poland, & Goldberg, 2003). Tapscott (1998) has noted that this generation demonstrates a profound shift in preference from passive, ‘broadcast’ (unidirectional) media to interactive (actively controlled) media; even the videogame, the epitome to parents of isolated behavior, is being played interactively with others, either faceto-face or virtually in real time. Interestingly, persons with disabilities have been reported to have increased Internet use at more than twice the rate of their typical peers (Hendershot, 2001), suggesting both comfort and needs that may be different from their typical peers. Lenhart et al. observed that 58% of persons with disabilities who use the Internet do so from home only vs. only 44% of typical users. They also are just as likely to use the Internet for mail services, and go to news and other Websites for information. Even students with disabilities have commented on their comfort levels in using technology, as reflected in the following comment by a college student with a learning disability: …schools today are more technological and more advanced, and they [students] probably feel more comfortable using DVD players instead of film strips or VHS or using a tape player, they rather use a DV, or ah, CD player where as they know how to use it they know how to work that because that’s what they have in their house, and what they use, and their friends. (Parette, 2004) Family members of students with disabilities have also commented on the relative comfort levels of their children with disabilities, as noted by one father in a recent online discussion hosted by the Family Center on Technology and Disability (Nurse, 2005): We all can learn so much from this new generation of kids who are growing up in this PS2, iPod, computer, cable and internet connected digital age! My 10-year-old 30

son isn't amazed by the internet, like his Dad, he just uses it to beat his PlayStation2 games! I'm finally learning to ask both my kids how to fix it and more often then not they'll do it! A little humbling, but a whole lot less frustrating! Tapscott (1998) refers to this phenomenon of children outpacing parents and adults on the technology track as the generation lap (rather than the generation gap). As one 15year-old put it, “For once in our civilization, children are educating older people. Children are more adept at using computers. Parents, teachers, and other adults are looking to children for information and help with computers and other computer-related stuff” (Tapscott, 1998, p. 36). And they are faster and more comfortable because it is easier for them: “Children are born with technology; they assimilate it. Adults must accommodate – a different and much more difficult learning process. With assimilation kids view technology as just another part of their environment. They soak it up along with everything else” (Tapscott, 1998, p. 40). Even in looking at college students with mild disabilities, changes have been noted with regard to the knowledge of and expectations for AT, not just technology in general (RiemerReiss & Wacker, 1999). At California State UniversityNorthridge, for example, it has been reported that: There has been a noticeable increase in students arriving on our campus with some knowledge of AT. Perhaps only 5 years ago this would have been considered the exception and we were in a position of having to provide all of the AT assessment and training. Over time, all labs on our campus have been equipped with AT, so there is no longer the large population of students who spend time in our DDS office only for the purpose of AT access. (Bud Rizer, personal communication, March 17, 2004) But, what is problematic with regard to this cultural shift in technological comfort and assimilation of use, which may be exhibited even by children with mild disabilities, is that schools are often resistive, or unable to respond appropriately, being composed of technologically uncomfortable adults who must hard work to accommodate to the ever increasing pressure to use technology themselves (Rosenthal, 1999). Connectivity to the world. One of the primary characteristics of Millennial children is that they like being connected to people and the world in which they live (Bock, 2001; Howe & Strauss, 2000; Mask, 2002). These children have grown up in a world referred to by Mask (2002) as lightspeed media, such as computers, cell phones, and cable resources. For example, in 2000 it was reported that there were more than 11 million cell phone users ages 10-24, with projections of such usage approximating 30,000 in 2004 (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2004). A Canadian study reported that cell phone usage by persons ages 15-34 Millennial Students with Disabilities

Journal of Special Education Technology

years was only slightly less than usage of persons without disabilities (Canadian Council on Social Development, 2002). Such media have resulted in Millennial children being inundated with information from a variety of sources, and thus being comfortable with using a range of media resources to communicate, socialize and learn (Bock, 2001; Growing Up Digital. The Rise of the Net Generation, n.d.). In 2001, about 90% of 5- to 17-year-olds used computers and 59% used the Internet (DeBell & Chapman, 2001). A survey of 75 seventhgrade students in 2 schools in the Midwest found that 50% reported having more than one computer in the home, with 31% having it in their bedroom and 21% with an Internet connection on that computer (Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2005). Among individuals ages 18 and above who use the Internet, 88% reported the significance of the Internet in their daily lives (Fallows, 2004). Of particular importance in the Pew Internet and Family Life Project (Fallows) was the finding that 85% stated that the Internet is a good way to communicate or interact with others, and 75% noted that it was a good place to conduct everyday transactions. Lenhart, Simon, and Graziano (2001) observed that, for adolescents, instant messaging (IM) and e-mail appeared “to be natural communication and socialization mechanisms” (p. 39). Seventy-seven percent (77%) of the seventh-grade students reported using both email and IM with 42% using email at least 2-3 times per day and 57% using IM at least 2-3 times per day. In fact, 71% selected contacting friends among their top three uses of the Internet (Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2005). The difference between Millennial children and persons from previous generations, as Bock (2001) observed, is that “My generation and the Millennials older siblings see the net as something they connect to [emphasis added]. But Millennials see the net as a way to connect to the world and each other” [emphasis added] (Fallows 2004). The Internet can also function as a way that Millennials explore and examine their own social and personality development (Tapscott, 1998; Turkle, 1995). Through multiple screen names and multiple email addresses, children and adolescents experiment with ways to interact with their peers, both appropriately and inappropriately, through email, in chat rooms, and using instant messaging (IM). These forms of communication permit the individual to create a different virtual personality for each screen name. Peterson-Karlan and Parette (2005) reported that 44% of seventh graders they surveyed had more than one screen name (screen names are used when accessing chatrooms or in using IM). In fact, 15% reported having friends that they only contacted through email or IM, that is, they have never physically met these virtual friends. These experiences permit them to develop, “better relationships and more communication with different aspects of their self” (Turkle, quoted in Tapscott, 1998, p. 97). Peterson-Karlan and Parette

Unfortunately, relatively little data are available to assist education professionals in understanding to what extent students with mild disabilities share such characteristics of connectiveness with their world. A large number of persons with disabilities who use the Internet (80%) report that they have friends or family who go online, though this is still slightly less than the percentage (89%) reported by persons without disabilities (Lenhart et al., 2003). Lenhart also reported that persons with disabilities seem to be more attached to and are less likely to give up technology in their homes as compared to persons without disabilities. Of particular relevance to persons with disabilities was the finding that physical closeness to the world around a person seems to be related to likelihood on going online. People who belong to community or social groups, or who have immediate friends and family with whom to participate socially, were less likely to go online (Lenhart). Friedman (2004) reported that school-age children with cognitive disabilities used a wide range of technology devices at higher rates than their adult counterparts, including computers, the Internet, cell phones, and email. In Canada, cell phones were used more frequently by younger persons with disabilities than older individuals (Canadian Council on Social Development, 2002). Though fewer people with disabilities have computers compared to their typical peers, they are less likely to want to give up a range of technologies at home (Fallows, 2004). Of particular importance is the finding that persons with disabilities feel that the Internet is an important venue for socialization with others. As early as 1998, Tapscott reported that 7500 children with disabilities or chronic illnesses used over 300 Ability On-Line bulletin board service (BBS) conferences to communicate with one another and adult mentors (using at that time, slow dial-up modems). Given that Millennial children with mild disabilities often have fewer social contacts, and people with whom to interact socially, these children may, in fact, have even greater needs for information technologies to ensure their connectedness with others. A National Organization on Disability/ Harris Survey on Community Participation (2001) reported that the Internet was effective in helping people with less severe disabilities to make contact and develop social relationships as reflected in the finding that 52% of participants stated the Internet has significantly increased such ability. Similarly, this study found little differences between people with and without disabilities with regard to the Internet’s ability to affect their ability to socialize with friends, neighbors, and family. It also noted that 4 out of 10 persons both with and without disabilities felt the Internet increased their connectedness to the world, while 50% of those surveyed felt that it increased their connectedness somewhat. Finally, it has been observed that persons who use other technologies, such as cell phones and 31

Journal of Special Education Technology

personal digital assistants (PDAs), were more likely to be online (Lenhart et al., 2003). Technology as a tool for learning. Howe and Strauss (2000) noted that Millennials show fascination with and mastery of new technologies in our society, and have often reported use of information technologies as important tools for learning. For example, Lenhart et al. (2001) reported that among 12- to 17-year-olds, 94% used the Internet for school research and 78% believed that the Internet helped them with schoolwork. Peterson-Karlan and Parette (2005) reported that 75% of the seventh-graders reported using the Internet to do schoolwork while only 48% used a word processor to do the same; 58% of those who used the Internet for school work used it 1-3 times per week. Fallows (2004) reported that 92% of Internet users ages 18 and older indicated that the Internet was a good place to go for getting information. PetersonKarlan and Parette reported that 38% of seventh graders reported use of the Internet to “look up stuff I want to know” (as opposed to schoolwork) as being among their top 3 reasons to use the Internet. Though the degree to technology acculturation varies markedly across cultural groups and individuals within these groups (Parette et al., 2004), children with mild disabilities and their families are becoming generally more acculturated to the presence of AT in classroom and other environments/milieus, and thus and expecting it with greater frequency (Lahm & Sizemore, 2002; Parette, 2004; Parette & Peterson-Karlan, 2005; Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2005), However, what little data are available, suggest that students with disabilities tend to use these technologies less frequently (DeBell & Chapman, 2004; Hendershot, 2001; National Organization on Disability, 2002), often due to lack of access (National Organization of Disability). In a study of the technology use patterns of post-secondary students with disabilities, Riemer-Reiss and Wacker (1999) found that school-related technologies (e.g., tape recorders, computers, and other school/learning devices) were the most frequently used devices and that such school devices were also the most frequently abandoned. They speculated that the high rate of abandonment might be explained by a greater need among this population for devices related to learning together with insufficient availability of information about devices produced specifically for learning or of devices themselves, availability being another form of access. While Millennials value technology as a tool for learning, Levin and Arafeh (2002) found that the greatest use of technology by Millennial adolescents was outside of school, noting particular concerns about the numerous barriers to full utilization of technology in the school (e.g., restrictions on Internet and computer use, antiquated equipment). Uninspiring use of technology by teachers was also observed to be a substantial barrier to the learning process. In addition, 32

reports have noted that education professionals generally use technologies in very different ways from children with whom they are working in the general education curriculum, often relying on information technologies for the preparation of class materials rather than for curriculum implementation (Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004). Such differences in technology use results in a considerable disconnect between the learning styles (and preferences) of students, and what education professionals practice in classroom environments. As noted by Levin and Arafeh (2002), today’s students express many concerns regarding how education professionals should be using technologies.

DISCUSSION The amount that is not known regarding the technological acculturation of students with mild disabilities is alarming in light of the mandate to consider AT in the development of their IEPs. Assistive technology is inherently still technology and we know little of their comfort with and assimilation of technology. Fundamentally, we know little of their preferences for, choices among, and usage of common non-school technologies. We know little of the extent to which they use or have the desire to use the tools of communication and learning so prevalent among their peers. In addition to their academic and learning difficulties, these students are known to lack confidence in themselves in public, or real-time, social and academic settings (Lerner, 2000). But again, we know little of their confidence in their ‘virtual selves’ arising from virtual interaction with their peers, because, in fact, we know little of this experience. But why is this of importance? Knowledge of technology preferences, choice, and patterns of use by students with mild disabilities, has the potential to impact the selection of AT, the ways in which the students interact with the AT, the amount of instruction the students will need in the use of AT, especially computer-based and other digital AT, and ultimately, the acceptance or rejection of types of AT. This knowledge may help to clarify the differing perspectives that adults and Millennial children and adolescents bring to the selection and implementation of AT. This knowledge has potential to impact issues related to the funding of AT, especially when AT is considered for high incidence disabilities such as learning disabilities, mild cognitive delay, emotional or behavioral disabilities and etc. Finally, the process of determining what technology students want, prefer, and use can impact self-determination, one of the domains that has been found to be important to the attainment of post-school outcomes. Personal preference and choice are among the human factors affecting the successful outcomes of AT consideration, (i.e., selection, implementation and continued use of AT) (King, 1999). In fact, of the 10 human factors identified by Millennial Students with Disabilities

Journal of Special Education Technology

King (1999) as being essential to the process of selecting AT (or explaining it’s abandonment), five relate to the user’s perception, comfort or experience with the technology of our everyday lives. Transparency of technology relates to the practical userfriendliness or apparent visibility of how to use the technology or AT. Certainly to most Millennials, “technology is like air” in that it is highly transparent and it’s uses are visible. For Millennials, recognition of remote controls and for what they are used is as common as is recognition of the toothbrush and how to use it; when encountered, the graphical interface of the Web is not consciously considered by he Millennial child, it is just used. Such transparency may be highly related to the mappings and affordances of technology (King, 1999). Mappings are the structures, organizations, groupings, and directions (locations in space) that relate to the control and operation of technology; such mappings create natural and unnatural expectations of how things operate or behave. Tapscott (1998) has noted that the N-Gens have little use for technical manuals. From their comments, it is clear that they already have acquired the mappings that adults learn from the manuals. Affordances refers to how the design of the technology, including the materials influences the users and those around them; it is a psychology of materials that influences how we think of ourselves and others as users of these materials or technologies and for what we use them. Instant messaging probably has very different affordances for the Millennial than it does for adults who teach and parent them. For Millennials it affords them the ability to communicate with many friends at once, to be ‘connected,’ but for parents it affords the child with yet another way to waste time. Mappings and affordances reflect knowledge of technology use that is in-the-head versus in-the-world (King, 1999). This is the knowledge that is carried with the user based on prior learning, exposure to and experience with technology and is not found in the knowledge necessary to operate the particular AT built into it or displayed as instructions on it (either on it or on the screen when using it). Knowledge of technology that is in the head has been assimilated and is ready to be used, even when encountering new technology that may not have been encountered before (e.g., who has to show a 5-year-old how to use someone else’s DVD remote?). Finally, cosmesis refers to the way technology appears to the user or those around them. Is the technology “cool” in relation to the way the user perceives it or perhaps, more importantly, the way the user perceives that others perceive it (Parette, Wojcik, Peterson-Karlan, & Hourcade, in press). If, for example, most typical peers are using digital technologies both during and after school for non-educational purposes Peterson-Karlan and Parette

(e.g., maintaining communications, obtaining information, socialization), education professionals must acknowledge these use patterns and embed use of these technologies in the curriculum. Use of tape players, for example, while convenient for many teachers when using talking books, may be perceived negatively by students with mild disabilities given that they are dated technologies (Parette et al., 2004). At the middle school level especially, changes in the way that pre- or young adolescents view themselves in relation to their peers can lead to the rejection of AT that has potential for benefit (Peterson-Karlan & Bakken, 2005). More acceptable solutions might be use of MP3 and CD players—devices that are used by an entire generation of students and which don’t call attention to the student (Parette et al, 2004). Sensitivity to such preferences and use patterns might certainly dramatically impact the high rate of abandonment reported among students (Riemer-Reiss & Wacker, 1999), as students don’t report resistance to new technology as a barrier to their decisions to use AT (Owens, Leung, Lamb, Smith, Shaw, & Hauff, 1999). The effect of such factors have been empirically examined (Scherer, Sax, VanBiervliet, Cushman, & Scherer, 2005), using the Matching Person and Technology (Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 2005) Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment (ATD PA) Consumer Form and supporting materials. It was found that (a) specific personal and psychosocial variables exist and are predictors of a person’s predisposition to and subsequent use of a given AT, and (b) a quantifiable relationship exists between the ATD PA’s measure of subjective quality of life and well-being and personal and psychosocial characteristics such that it is possible to predict a consumer’s predisposition to use a particular assistive technology as measured by the 12item ATD PA device form. The investigators also reported that the same factors are predictive of the quality of the match of device and user. Such a demonstration that predisposition can be reliably measured and its effect on AT choice predicted is encouraging; however, much further research is needed to examine how the role of technology experience and identified human technology factors (King, 1999) interact to produce such predisposition within and across various student populations with disabilities. Lack of consumer preference and choice has been shown to be the most important factor related to technology abandonment (Galvin & Scherer, 1996; Phillips & Zhao, 1993), and the literature is replete with support for the active involvement of consumers in the AT decision-making process (Carroll & Phillips, 1993; Freeman & Field, 1994; Phillips & Broadnax, 1992; Riemer-Reiss, 2000; Turner, Barrett, Outshall, Lacy, Keiningham, & Webster, 1995). Personal choice and preference is also a fundamental component of self-determination (Field & Hoffman, 1994; Wehmeyer, 33

Journal of Special Education Technology

1999), a critical factor in both student involvement in planning educational programs (Wood, Karvonen, Test, Browder, & Algozzine, 2004), transition planning (Field & Hoffman, 1998) and in achieving post-school success (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). To omit the technology preferences and choices is to ignore them during longitudinal educational planning related to the development of both their IEPs (primary through high school grades) and their school to post-school transition plans (middle and high school grades). Preliminary research indicates that even the AT which is enhancing student performance is not well integrated into the goals and objectives of students with academic, learning, cognitive, or physical disabilities (Peterson-Karlan & Bakken, 2005) suggesting that much work is yet to be done to integrate technology preference and choice into AT consideration and then into the IEP. Research suggests that it is a problem not just for AT consideration; while parents and teachers agree that self-determination, including student preference, choice and involvement in decision-making is important, there are significant discrepancies between this belief and their actual educational practices (Grigal, Neuberet, Moon, & Graham, 2003; Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 2000; Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Zhang, 2002). Patterns of technology use by Millennial students with mild disabilities also have the potential to address another common factor in the consideration, selection and implementation of AT—the cost. Although consideration of what-is-affordable rather than what-is-best is not supposed to influence the ethical, clinical practice of AT consideration, its influence is significant enough to impact evaluation and intervention efforts (King, 1999). The issue may be that there are two perspectives on cost--actual cost and perceived cost. The actual cost represents the dollars that must be spent to acquire, maintain, and update the technology. Actual costs of technology have decreased over time (Fortt, 2004) with new technologies being introduced first to the consumer market rather than to business or to the rich (Karlgaard, 2005); this has also been accompanied by an increase in the features offered to consumers at ever lower prices (Fortt). Decreases have also been seen in the actual costs of AT as evident in the emergence of negotiated group purchasing by school districts working together to increase the volume and lower the cost of such AT as reading and writing support software, and graphic symbol software (Infinitec, n.d.). Actual AT costs are also decreasing as large technology manufacturers such as Microsoft, IBM and Hewlett-Packard respond to the need for universal design and integrate AT into their regular products (Council for Exceptional Children, 2003) Perceived cost, like the factors of transparency, mappings, and knowledge inside the head, is a human factor arising from experience and assimilated into thinking patterns. The perception persists that AT is about expensive, high-end 34

devices (Special Education Assistive Technology Center, 2004). For teachers and administrators, the perceived cost of providing AT to the numbers of students with mild disabilities may seem incredibly high. And yet, the actual cost may be much lower if it is determined that Millennial students with mild disabilities have access to the same type of computer technology (e.g., their own computer, CD-burner, email, and access to the Internet) and digital technology (e.g., MP3 or CD player) If these base technologies are available, there may be no actual cost (e.g., ReadPlease Free, a text-to-speech text reader; ReadPlease Corporation, 1999-2004,) or a minimal cost (e.g., $50-60 for a voice output word processor through a group buy), to acquire the technology and minimal training costs. This may be especially important if these students already possess digital skills comparable to their peers (e.g., to communicate; to record digital information; to find information on the Internet) (Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2005). The foregoing discussion has addressed the intersection of patterns of Millennial student technology preference and use with the consideration of AT for use with students with mild disabilities to achieve educational learning outcomes. One other finding that emerges from the examination of the Millennial students and technology discussed above is the role that it plays in their sense of ‘connectivity’ and in their social development. Post-school outcomes research has demonstrated that students with learning and academic disabilities are socially isolated and not connected to the community. For example, Sitlington (1996) reviewed the data available to that date and reported that individuals with learning disabilities reported fewer friends with whom to go places and do things, had difficulty making friends and relating to parents and relative, and expressed social dissatisfaction with their employment. Data from the first National Longitudinal Transition Study (Wagner et al., 1992 cited in Sitlington, 1996) indicated that among youth with learning disabilities out of school 3-5 years, 50% interacted with peers only 1-3 times per week, 9% interacted less than weekly, and 4% reported being socially isolated. More recent data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (2005) indicates that 25.3% of youth with learning disabilities ‘hang out with friends’ only 1 or 2 times per week with 10.3% reporting “not at all.” Parents similarly report that 34% of youth with learning disabilities only sometimes ‘makes friends easily’ with 5.8% never making friends easily. An attempt was made to determine ‘how often friends have called’ the youth with disabilities across a oneyear span but there were too few responses to reliably report. What remains unknown, then, is the extent to which middle and high school students with mild disabilities are using the digital social-communication tools used by their peers without disabilities. What is also as yet unknown is whether AT or interventions designed to facilitate their access Millennial Students with Disabilities

Journal of Special Education Technology

and use of Internet-based communication with peers, friends, and extended family would have any effect upon the development of sustainable and supportive friendships and social connectedness. As our society grows increasingly dependent on a wide array of new and emerging technologies, the challenge of using technology to facilitate the achievement of students with mild disabilities in school settings and ensure their productivity as members of society will become more prominent in the near future. Integral to meeting this challenge, however, will be the development of new knowledge about this generation of children who perceive, prefer, and use technology in far different ways than the education professionals currently involved in ‘considering’ technology for them. Developing this knowledge will require greater attention not only to what technologies students are using, but also to how to use the technologies that are commonplace among these students, and which are yet to be effectively integrated into the curricula in educational milieus. Without such understanding to effectively consider AT for students with mild disabilities, it is doubtful that effective AT consideration during decision-making processes can be achieved, much less the kinds of educational outcomes that might be attained otherwise.

REFERENCES Baca, L. M., & Cervantes H. T. (Eds.). (1989). The bilingual special education interface (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 45-63. Behrmann, M. & Schaff, J.(2001). Assisting educators with assistive technology: Enabling children to achieve independence in living and learning. Children and Families 42(3), 24-28. Behrmann, M., & Jerome, M. K. (2002). Assistive technology for students with mild disabilities: Update 2002. ERIC Digest. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.ericdigests.org /2003-1/assistive.htm Bernt, P. W., Bernt, J. P., & Turner, S. V. (2003, April). Gender patterns in middle school students’ media use. Paper presented at the American educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.csm.ohiou.edu/mediamessage/AERA%20paper% 20on%20gender%20patterns%20in%20media%20use.pdf Bock, W. (2001, July). The Millennial generation. Monday May 12, 2005, from Memo. Retrieved http://www.mondaymemo.net/010702feature.htm Cable News Network. (2005). Revving up for back-to-school. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://money.cnn.com/ 2004/07/28/news/fortune500/backtoschool/ Peterson-Karlan and Parette

Canadian Council on Social Development. (2002). Focus on technology among persons with disabilities. CCSD’s Information Sheet Number 7, 2002. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.ccsd.ca/drip/research/dis7/ Carroll, M., & Phillips, B. (1993). Survey on assistive technology abandonment by new users (Cooperative Agreement No. H133E0016). Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Council for Exceptional Children (2003). Technology: The great equalizer. Today, 10(4), 1, 5-6, 15. Cross T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care, volume I. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center. Cummins, T. (1991). Empowering culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning problems. ERIC Digest #E500. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://ericec.org/digests/e500.html Curtis, D. (2005). Assistive technology: Enabling dreams. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.glef.org/php/ article.php?id=Art_1241 Day, S. L., & Edwards, B. J. (1996). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 486-492. DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2004). Computer and internet use by children and adolescents in 2001. Education Statistics Quarterly, 5(4). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/5_4/2_1.asp Edyburn, D. L. (2004, January). Assistive and instructional technology for students with mild disabilities. Paper presented to the 2004 Assistive Technology Industry Association Meeting, Orlando, FL. Edyburn, D.L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(6), 1-24. Edyburn, D.L. (2002). Born digital: Technology in the life of students starting kindergarten, high school, and college. Special Education Technology Practice, 4(4), 48. Fallows, D. (2004). The Internet and daily life. Many Americans use the Internet in everyday activities, but traditional offline habits still dominate. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Field S., & Hoffman, A. (1998). Self-determination: An essential element of successful transitions. National Educational Service, 2(4), 37-40. Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1994). Development of a model for selfdetermination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 159-169 Fortt, J. (2004, January). 2004’s top technology trends. Retrieved February 23, 2005 from http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/ 2004/01/02/102techtrendsspinnacor_ii.html Freeman, S. A., & Field, W. E. (1994). Selection of rural assistive technology using a hypercard-based knowledge system. Assistive Technology, 6, 126-133. 35

Journal of Special Education Technology

Friedman, M. (2004, March). Assistive technology research and development collaborative on cognitive disabilities. Paper presented to the 2004 CSUN Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, Northridge, CA. Retrieved February 9, 2005, from http://www.biausa.org/word.files.to.pdf/ good.pdfs/CSUN2004finalused.pdf Galvin, J. C., & Scherer, M. J. (Eds.). (1996). Evaluating, selecting and using appropriate assistive technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Georgia Tech Research Corporation. (2004). Accessibility in the analysis phase: Example user profiles. Atlanta, GA: Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center. Retrieved February 9, 2005, from http://www.ittatc.org/technical/access-ucd/users_eg.php Grigal, M., Neuberet, D. A., Moon, M. S., & Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for students with disabilities: Views of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 97-112. Growing Up Digital. The Rise of the Net Generation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2005, from http://www.growingupdigital.com/index.html Hendershot, G. (2001). Internet use by people with disabilities grows at twice the rate of non-disabled, yet still lags significantly behind. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&p ageID=1430&nodeID=1&FeatureID=509&redirected=1 &CFID=2769287&CFTOKEN=71475432 Hofer, M., Chamberlain, B., & Scot, T. (2004, October). Fulfilling the need for a technology integration specialist. THE Journal Online, 32(3). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A5036.cfm Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising. The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books, Random House. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq Infinitec (n.d.). Infinite potential through technology: Group buys. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://coalitionconnection.org/includes/index.cfm Institute for Matching Person and Technology. (2005). Matching person and technology. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://members.aol.com/IMPT97/mpt.html Kaiser Family Foundation. (1999). Kids and media: The new millennium. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education. Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore: Brookes. Karlgaard, R. (2005, January). Three trends for 2005. Retrieved May 12, 2005 from http://www.forbes.com/forbes/ 2005/0131/039_print.html Keiman, G. M. (2004). Does technology enhance inquiry-based learning? Washington, DC: Consortium for School May 12, 2005, from Networking. Retrieved http://www.cosn.org/resources/edc/vol_1.cfm 36

King, T. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Lahm, E. A., & Sizemore, L. (2002). Factors that influence assistive technology decision-making. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17, 15-25. Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Rainie, L., Allen, K., Boyce, A., & Madden, M. (2003). The ever-shifting Internet population. A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Shifting_Net_Pop_R eport.pdf Lenhart, A., Simon, M., & Graziano, M. (2001). The Internet and education: Findings of the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports_archive.asp Lerner, J. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Levin, D., & Arafeh. (2002). The Digital disconnect: The widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Re port.pdf Leyden, F. (2004, April). The Millennials: Understanding the next great U.S. generation. A conversation with William Strauss. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.gbn.com/ ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=27221 Lynch, E. W. (1997). Conceptual framework. From culture shock to cultural learning. In E. W. Lynch & M. J. Hnason (Eds.), Developing cross-cultural competence. A guide for working with children and their families (2nd ed., pp. 23-45). Baltimore: Brookes. Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (Eds.). (1997). Developing crosscultural competence. A guide for working with children and their families (2nd ed). Baltimore: Brookes. Manila Bulletin. (2001). MP3 players: Up, up, and away. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.mb.com.ph/ INFO2005020427917.html Mask, T. (2002). Are millennials smarter? Retrieved February 8, 2005, from http://www.millennials.com/ CognitiveMask.html Michaels, C. A., Prezant, F. P., Morabito, S. M., & Jackson, K. (2002). Assistive and instructional technology for college students with disabilities: A national snapshot of postsecondary service providers. Journal of Special education Technology, 17(1), 5-14. Microsoft Corporation. (2004). The wide range of abilities and its impact on computer technology. Seattle, WA: Author. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/1/f/01f506eb2d1e-42a6-bc7b-1f33d25fd40f/ResearchReport.doc Millennial Students with Disabilities

Journal of Special Education Technology

Microsoft Corporation. (n.d.). Accessible technology: A guide for May 12, 2005, from Retrieved educators. http://www.microsoft.com/Education/EdGuideAccessible.aspx Miller, C. K., & Norton, M. P. (2003). Making god real for a new generation. Ministry with millennials born from 1982 to 1999. Nashville, TN: Discipleship Resources. Miraglia, E., Law, R., & Collins, P. (1999). A baseline definition Retrieved May 12, 2005, from of culture. http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/cu lture-definition.html. Mosier, R. (2001). The millennials. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://hettler.com/AAHAM/Generations-Mosier.htm National Center for Learning Disabilities. (1999-2004). No Child Left Behind and students with learning Retrieved May 12, 2005, from disabilities. http://www.ld.org/advocacy/nclb_policy.cfm National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. (2005). NLTS2 data tables. Retrieved on May 12, 2005, from http://nlts2.org/nlts2_textonly/search/datatableOverview.html National Organization on Disability. (2001). 2000 NOD/Harris Survey on community participation (Rep. No. 12076). New York: Harris Interactive, Inc. National Organization on Disability. (2002). What is the technology gap? Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&p ageID=1430&nodeID=1&FeatureID=771&redirected=1 &CFID=2769287&CFTOKEN=71475432 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. Nurse, T. (2005, January 5). Re:Welcome participants. Message posted to http://www.fctd.info/webboard/ webboard.php?board=474 Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers, & millennials. Understanding the new students. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 36-47. Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. (1999-2005). Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: Educatuse. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.educause.edu/ EducatingtheNetGeneration/5989 Owens, J., Leung, P., Lamb, G., Smith, K., Shaw, J., & Hauff, R. (1999, July). Assistive technology issues for students with disabilities and university staff who work with them. Paper presented at the HERSDA Annual International Conference, Melbourse, Australia. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.herdsa.org.au/branches/vic/Cornerstones/pdf/Ow ens.PDF Parette, H. P. (2004, April). Millennial children in a digital age: Assistive technology futures in special education. Paper presented to the Council for Exceptional Children Annual Convention and Expo, New Orleans. Parette, H. P., & Petch-Hogan, B. (2000). Approaching families. Facilitating culturally/ linguistically diverse family involvement. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(2), 4-10. Parette, H. P., Hourcade, J. J., & Huer, M. B. (2003). Using assistive technology focus groups with families across Peterson-Karlan and Parette

cultures. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 429-440. Parette, H. P., Huer, M. B., & Scherer, M. (2004). Effects of acculturation on assistive technology service delivery. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 31-41. Parette, H. P., Huer, M. B., & VanBiervliet, A. (2005). Cultural issues and assistive technology. In D. L. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 81-103). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc. Parette, H. P., Wojcik, B., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Hourcade, J. J. (in press). Assistive technology for students with mild disabilities: What’s cool and what’s not. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities. Parette, P., & Peterson-Karlan, G. (2005, January). Issues in building a national assistive technology coalition. Paper presented to the Assistive Technology Industry Association 2005 Conference and Exhibition, Orlando, FL. Parette, P., & Wojcik, B. (2004). Creating a technology toolkit for students with mental retardation: A systematic approach. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 23-31. Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Bakken, J. P. (January, 2005). Evaluating systemic and individual AT outcomes. Paper presented to the Assistive Technology Industry Association 2005 Conference and Exhibition, Orlando, FL. Peterson-Karlan, G., & Parette, P. (2005, January). Understanding technology use by adolescents with and without disabilities. Paper presented to the Assistive Technology Industry Association 2005 Conference and Exhibition, Orlando, FL. Phillips, B., & Broadnax, D. D. (1992). National survey on abandonment of technology (Cooperative Agreement No. H133E80016). Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Phillips, B., & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5, 36-45. Puckett, K. S. (2004). Project Access: Field testing an assistive technology toolkit for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 5-18. Raines, C. (2001). Managing millennials. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.generationsatwork.com/ articles/millenials.htm ReadPlease Corporation. (1999-2004). ReadPlease. Software that lets your computer talk. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.readplease.com/ Riemer-Reiss, M. L. (2000, July-September). Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0825/3_ 66/66032259/print.jhtml Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R. (1999). Assistive technology use and abandonment among college students with disabilities. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 3(23). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume3/riemer.html 37

Journal of Special Education Technology

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ ideas/tes/chapter3_8.cfm Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002). Multicultural students with special language needs. Practical strategies for assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates. Rosenthal, I. G. (1999). New teachers and technology: Are they prepared? Technology and Learning, 19(8), 22-24, 26-28. Scherer, M. J., Sax, C., VanBiervliet, A., Cushman, L. A., & Scherer, J. V. (2005). Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Manuscript submitted for publication. Schofeld, J. W. (1995). Computers and the classroom culture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Sitlington, P. L. (1996). Transition to living: The neglected component of transition programming for individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 31-39. Skinner, H., Biscope, S., Poland, B., & Goldberg, E. (2003). How adolescents use technology for health information: Implications for health professionals from focus group studies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5(4). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.jmir.org/2003/4/e32/ Soto, G. (2000). “We have come a long ways” AAC and Multiculturalism: From cultural awareness to cultural responsibility. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, SID 12 Newsletter, 9(2), 1-3. Soto, G., Huer, M. B., & Taylor, O. (1997). Multicultural issues. In L. L. Lloyd, D. H. Fuller, & H. H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 406413). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Special Education Assistive Technology Center. (2004). Day of visioning: Increasing access to assistive technology. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://seat.ilstu.org Tapscott, D. (1998). The rise of the Net generation: Growing up digital. New York: McGraw Hill. Tinglelinde. (2005, January 16). MP3 players in Spokane Washington. Message posted to http://tingilinde.typepad.com/starstuff/2005/01/mp3_play ers_in_.html Turkle, S. (2004). How computers change the way we think. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21), B26-B28. Turner, E., Barrett, C., Cutshall, A., Lacy, B. K., Keiningham, J., & Webster, M. K. (1995). The user's perspective of assistive technology. In K. F. Flippo, K. J. Inge, & J. M. Barcus (Eds.), Assistive technology: A resource for school, work and community (pp. 283-290). Baltimore: Brookes. U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward A new golden age in American education—How the Internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations. National

38

education technology plan. Jessup, MD: Author. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ os/technology/plan/2004/plan.pdf Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model of selfdetermination: describing development and implementing instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(1), 53-61. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, C. A. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245-255. Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers' promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. Journal of Special Education, 34, 58-68. Wood, W. M., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., Browder, D., & Algozzine, B. (2004). Promoting student self-determination skills in IEP planning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(3), 8-16. Woodard, I. V., Emory, H., & Gridina, N. (2000). Media in the home 2000. The fifth annual survey of parents and children. Survey Series No. 7. Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved February 15, 2005, from http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/05_media_de veloping_child/mediasurvey/survey7.pdf Woodward, J., & Cuban, L. (Eds.). (2001). Technology, curriculum and professional development. Adapting schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. WorthWaitingFor. (2005, February 6). MP3 players, etc. in school. Message posted to http://boards.youthnoise.com/eve/ ubb.x/a/tpc/f/455299255/m/86210957763/r/84210067763 Zabala, J. (1998). Ready, SETT, Go! Online workshop. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www2.edc.org/NCIP/ Workshops/sett3/index.html Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, J. (2002). Teacher and parent practice on fostering self-determination of high school students with mild disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 157-169.

George R. Peterson-Karlan is Associate Professor in the Special Education Department at Illinois State University. Howard P. Parette is the Kara A. Peters Endowed Chair in Assistive Technology in the Special Education Department at Illinois State University. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to George R. Peterson-Karlan, Department of Special Education, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5910, Normal, IL, 61790-5910. Email to [email protected].

Millennial Students with Disabilities