Assistive Technology, Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning: Improved Learning Opportunities

Journal of Special Education Technology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 45-52

  Hitchcock, Chuck ^a   Stahl, Skip ^a  

^a Center for Applied Special Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745689306     PISSN: 01626434     EISSN: 23813121     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016264340301800404     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. CAST. Assistive technologies and UDL. (n.d). Retrieved August 14, 2003, from http://www.cast.org/udl/AssistiveTechnologiesvs. UDL13.cfm.
2. The Center for Universal Design (1997).The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Retrieved August 14, 2003 from North Carolina State University College of Design, The Center for Universal Design Web site: http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm.
3. Freed G., Rothberg M., Wlodkowski T., (2003). Making Educational Software and Web Sites Accessible: Design Guidelines Including Math and Science Solutions. Boston, MA: The CTB/WBGH National Center for Accessible Media.
4. Hitchcock C., (2001). Balanced Instructional Support and Challenge in Universally Designed Learning Environments. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 23–30.
5. Hitchcock C., Meyer A., Rose D., Jackson R., (2002). Providing Access to the General Education Curriculum.
6. Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17.
7. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2000).
8. King-Sears M. E., (1997). Best academic practices for inclusive practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29, 1–21.
9. Labbo L., Reinking D., (1999). Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in literacy research instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 478–492.
10. Mull C., Sitlington P., (2003). The Role of Technology in the Transition to Postsecondary Education of Students with Learning Disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 26–32.
11. NCAC. Effective classroom practices. (n.d). Retrieved August 14, 2003, from CAST, NCAC Web site: http://www.cast.org/ncac/index.cfm?i=2874.
12. NCAC. An overview – enhancements literature review (nd.). Retrieved August 14, 2003, from CAST, NCAC Web site: http://www.castorg/ncac/EnhancementsLiteratureReview1660.cfm.
13. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107–110, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., (2001).
14. Nolet V., McLaughlin M. J., (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in student-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
15. Rose D. H., (2003). No Child with Disabilities Left Behind: Recommendations for the Reauthorization of IDEA, Unpublished policy paper, (1).
16. Rose D. H., Meyer A., (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
17. Stough L., Palmer D., (2003). Special Thinking in Special Settings: A Qualitative Study of Expert Special Educators. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 206–222.
18. Ysseldyke J., (2001). Reflections on a Career: 25 Years of Research on Assessment and Instruction Decision Making. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 295–309.