PURPOSE: This study surveyed US programmes that train professionals in assistive technology (AT). Surveys contained questions regarding programme characteristics, audiences, training content, and approaches. METHOD: This multi-method, longitudinal study gathered information from 55 programmes in 27 states concerning their courses, curricula, and training audiences in 2002 and again in 2004. The study focused on 45 unique programmes conducting AT training for formal credit, which included graduate or undergraduate credit or degrees, continuing education units (CEUs), and/or AT credential. RESULTS: Twenty-five programmes at universities and colleges (average age 10 years) trained mainly graduate students, and typically offered five or six three-unit AT courses. Twenty community-based programmes (average age 7 years) offered mainly 1- or 2-day workshops. Special educators represented the largest group of trainees. Thirty-two training directors and 135 instructors described training barriers, curriculum issues, distance and hands-on learning methods, and future AT training directions. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary AT training not only reaches core audiences of disability-related professionals, but has expanded to include new audiences. Special and general educator training may be a model for inclusion. Although distance learning can reach diverse audiences, faculty in training programmes also emphasised hands-on training. AT training programmes experience considerable turnover and remain vulnerable to funding losses.
PURPOSE: This study surveyed US programmes that train professionals in assistive technology (AT). Surveys contained questions regarding programme characteristics, audiences, training content, and approaches. METHOD: This multi-method, longitudinal study gathered information from 55 programmes in 27 states concerning their courses, curricula, and training audiences in 2002 and again in 2004. The study focused on 45 unique programmes conducting AT training for formal credit, which included graduate or undergraduate credit or degrees, continuing education units (CEUs), and/or AT credential. RESULTS: Twenty-five programmes at universities and colleges (average age 10 years) trained mainly graduate students, and typically offered five or six three-unit AT courses. Twenty community-based programmes (average age 7 years) offered mainly 1- or 2-day workshops. Special educators represented the largest group of trainees. Thirty-two training directors and 135 instructors described training barriers, curriculum issues, distance and hands-on learning methods, and future AT training directions. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary AT training not only reaches core audiences of disability-related professionals, but has expanded to include new audiences. Special and general educator training may be a model for inclusion. Although distance learning can reach diverse audiences, faculty in training programmes also emphasised hands-on training. AT training programmes experience considerable turnover and remain vulnerable to funding losses.
Authors: Charles Campeau-Vallerand; François Michaud; François Routhier; Philippe S Archambault; Dominic Létourneau; Dominique Gélinas-Bronsard; Claudine Auger Journal: JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol Date: 2019-10-26