CAN AT EXIST IN PARALLEL WITH ICT? OUR ROLE AS EDUCATORS.

     While calibrating Assistive Technologies, one often comes across the debate concerning the relationship between AT and ICT. According to Mavrou (2011):

… a piece of equipment or software can be considered AT for a disabled user and not AT for a nondisabled User… this may cause a confusion of what is and what is not AT. On the other hand, dividing and characterizing products into AT and mainstream ICT contains two major risks. Firstly, it is very likely to also divide users together with technology, directing back to the deficit model of disability and discrimination. Secondly, in the effort to differentiate products emphasis is placed on technology per se and not on the substantial reasons of technology applications, i.e. equal opportunities and universal design of learning and social environments. One of the few ways out of this frame in the information era is to recognise the potentials of technology as a means to reduce barriers to information, knowledge and skills, in the same way AT and mainstream ICT technologies are recognised as important for innovation and cost effectiveness. After all, sometimes mainstream ICT is straightforward effective for people with disabilities as part of the whole community, with examples of the use of cell phones with text messaging etc. There is clearly a benefit in the technological progress, materialized in mainstream technologies, for the effectiveness of Assistive Technology, which is sometimes designed and manufactured with the help of mainstream ICT for people with disabilities as the target group, and vice versa. Hence, this debate results to the need to emphasise the theoretical bases of the use of technology for the respect to diversity, differentiation and inclusion. (p. 42, my emphasis).

For example, the nature of the assessment process, which is an inherent part of all stages of the use of AT, can be really contentious if the theoretical bases mentioned by Mavrou are unknown and/or not properly used. In the case of ATOS, for example, the lack of these theoretical bases concerning the use of technology for the respect of diversity, have led to both of the risks mentioned by Mavrou: reinforcement of the publicity of ATOS as a sponsor and IT provider at the Games (i.e. recognition of the strengths of technology per se), as well as amplification of the discrimination against the disabled, both during the Games and during the Work Assessment process. The debate seems to extend in other settings as well, for example in educational settings. Quoting Edyburn (2004):

Most schools have two parallel systems in place for supporting technology. Assistive technology devices are managed by assistive technology specialists for students with disabilities. The AT staff are challenged to work within the larger context of a school district where network coordinators and technology specialists manage the instructional technology (IT) infrastructure for students without disabilities. There are considerable differentials between these two systems in terms of power, authority, and control (i.e., you can’t put that adaptive software on the network because it will make the network crash...). It is relatively rare to find a school where IT and AT have been integrally linked in ways that support the success of all students. (p.19, my emphasis)  

It seems that we, as educators, will be faced with major challenges during the use of technology in our classes, and that these challenges arise when we forget that our aim as educators is to find ways to support the success of all our students. The use of technology should not be conceived as a fashion trend, but as a useful tool that liberates us and our students. However, even if we decide to distinguish what is and what is not good use of technology, based on the criterion of the existence of the theoretical bases mentioned above, one could argue that we are still faced with the risk of dividing technology in two kinds: technology for the “abled” and technology for the “disabled”, directing ourselves back to the deficit model. In my opinion, this is not the case, simply because authentic arguments from within a framework of human justice, is all about what inclusive education really is, and is all about not allowing discrimination to prevail in our educational system. The risk rather emanates from not acknowledging the existence, not knowing or not trying to learn these theoretical bases well enough. The risk also emanates, as we have seen before, from detaching these theoretical bases from the use of technology and/or merely studying the strengths of technology per se. Lacking the correct theoretical bases, the formation of discrimination is easy to build, whereas its deconstruction is a struggling process. We, as educators, must learn how to argue from within a framework of social justice a priori, rather than only try to deconstruct injustice. In other words, the work of an educator is not merely about fixing problems, but rather about creating just and unprejudiced learning environments in the first place. For a long time, I must admit that as an educator I very often felt like I was merely fixing problems. After my involvement with Inclusive Education, this seemed to change. And now, with the study of Technology and Disability, I have one more reason to consider myself as a creator of just learning environments rather than a fixer. According to Mavrou (2011), systematic provision for AT is still considered to be an innovation in Cyprus, but - seeing the glass half full- the point is, that what we do in this course, has already started to change that.

     On Wednesday 30 January there will be a discussion at the Pedagogical Institute, concerning the use of ICT within the educational reform (it will begin at 16:30, so maybe we can attend at least part of the discussion, before our course). I am thinking about attending the discussion, mainly for the following reasons: will the discussants acknowledge the existence of AT? Will they acknowledge the fact that AT and ICT exist in parallel? Will they be discussing from within a framework of social justice? Here’s an invitation for the discussion:

 

 

  

REFERENCES

Edyburn, D.L. (2004) Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practice. 5(4), 16-23.

Mavrou, K. (2011) Assistive Technology as an Emerging Policy and Practice: Processes, Challenges and Future Directions. Technology and Disability, 23(1), 41-51.