Week 8

The social projects included in Design for the other 90% focuses on taking down the challenges faced by those who are disadvantaged. Their work and goal is to provide these people with low cost solutions to provide them with the basic necessities that they need. There are six main focuses of these projects: transportation, shelter, health, water, energy and education. The work that is being performed in each of these are aimed at creating a better life for people and providing them with the resources that will help them change their lives and situations.

The education focus of these projects is geared at providing the tools for social and economic movement through education. These projects understand that without an education the cycle of poverty will continue. One project that I found particularly interesting was “One Laptop Per Child.” The goal of this project is to provide those without computers with one. The computer that is mentioned in the project description is one that only costs $100 and “is designed as an educational tool to bring learning, information, and communication to children in developing countries.” These computers would be provided to the students by either the government or non-profit groups and they would be used to create students who were technologically savvy. This project focuses on the need for computer education for all students. Often, I think we are focused on the classic needs of disadvantaged students, math, reading, and writing but in today’s world those skills could be useless without technology education. In the last 20 years the world has become smaller through the use of computers and as we improve the lives of those who most need it, we need to make sure that we are providing them with the tools that they need to succeed in the 21^st century. This program if executed correctly could be the solution for many students by putting laptops in their hands and giving them first hand experience with the technology they are required to know in today’s world.

http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/one-laptop-per-child

Week 7

As I went through the reading for class this week: “Toys for Children with Special Needs: You Can See a Lot by Observing” I was reminded of my niece and the summer that I spent as a teaching assistant for students with Autism. The articles’ discussion about the different stages of play, fitting each child individually for toys and the discussion on the current approach of specialists reminded me of these two things.

My niece is currently four years old and from the beginning I have always sought to buy the favorite gift of a holiday. I have learned from this quest that the latest greatest gift on the market does not always equal the favorite. After reading this article I realized that the reason they don’t always hit the mark is because they don’t always match her style. The idea of observing children play and seeing what they are truly into is the exact opposite approach than what the toy market wants toy buyers to take. They want to try to convince you that just because a toy is popular it is going to be right for every child and must be bought. I have also found that while buying her gifts that the ages listed on the side of the boxes often miss the mark. As mentioned in the article, labeling toys by developmental stages would be better than by ages. Often children do not meet up with the ages listed on the box and I think that sometimes toy companies try to stretch a toys marketability by stretching the ages on the box. By doing this they can sell more toys; if one buys a toy for a child at the top or bottom of the age range the child is either developmentally past a toy or not quite ready for it.

As for my experience in the preschool classroom, there we were instructed to help the kids play. All of the students were behind their age developmentally and need to, in some ways, be taught how to pretend. Many of them took objects at their face value rather than thinking outside the box. As teaching assistances we were instructed to help them pretend but I think sometimes it was forced on them. The article suggests giving them the right toys and letting them go on their own. I think the school I worked in was typical of the schools that Mistrett criticized on their approach. There was a mission and a purpose to everything on the staffs’ part and sometimes the students were not allowed to explore. I agree that schools need to have a purpose and that guiding and pushing all students and especially those with special needs but in some respects kids of all abilities need to chance to just be kids. Part of the development through play is kids just exploring and learning through it.

Week 6

Person and assistive technology device match is an individual process

Just as has been mentioned here before, matching a person with assistive technology is an extremely personal and individual choice. Along with it being a choice as to what technology they prefer, it is an individual process to decide what technology they will need. Every person has very different needs and participate in very different situations that they need assistance with.

As is mentioned in Curry’s Universal Design Accessibility for All Learners, different students need different technology to allow them to function best. In the article there is the example of the student with cerebral palsy who uses augmentative communication and switch-scanning equipment in class but Curry points out that different students might prefer different items for the same tasks. For this student with cerebral palsy it was an individual choice and process that matched her up with her chosen technology.

The Institute for Matching Person & Technology is located in Webster, NY and it uses a process called Matching Person & Technology (MPT), which matches users and assistive technology. (http://www.e-bility.com/arata/sigs_hpt_mpt.php) Through out their process they consider the environment and needs of the user to determine the technology that they will need. The process includes different tests and questions for the future users and is designed for persons over 15 years of age. They also have methods for those who are younger than 15 to match them with technology. With a process like MPT, users needs can be viewed holistically and the best technology for them can be found. Without processes like this one, users might not be able to view technology on such a personal level and may not get devices that truly fit their needs. In order to have a piece of technology that will be used continuously and to its fullest extent the process of matching users to it, needs to be personal. There are not one size fits all solutions when it comes to AT and believing that there is would be extremely detrimental to all.