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.
