Discussion Details: The Conceptual Framework Of The College

Discussion Details: the Conceptual Framework Of The College Of Educatio

Discussion Details: The Conceptual Framework of the College of Education (COE) describes the candidate as The Educator as Decision-Maker. This concept embodies the College’s constructivist approach to teaching and learning. Students’ prior knowledge, skills, and attitudes, including dispositions, interconnect with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and expectations they encounter as ASU. As a result of this fusion, students develop and acquire new knowledge, skills, and attitudes that manifest themselves in the students’ informed decision-making capabilities.

Provide a reflective statement (written or video) discussing how your thought processes, academic development, and professional disposition as a change agent, lifelong learner, and reflective practitioner have been impacted by the learning content provided during this course.

Discuss at least 3 specific content-related topics between modules 1 - 5 and address how each of those topics provided learning gains that clarified previous misconceptions, changed perspectives with new moments of discovery, and enhanced opportunities for life application to your personal or professional skill set.

If necessary, pose questions to the instructor regarding concepts that may still be unclear from modules 1 - 6. Three Topics - How assistive technology adaptations can be used to promote independence in daily living - Examine the features of an effective AT assessment to ensure that the individual and device combine to provide an effective person-technology match - Examine the components of an augmentative and alternative communication system and how they combine to provide individuals with severe speech problems opportunities to communicate on a daily basis across environments

Paper For Above instruction

The conceptual framework of the College of Education emphasizes the role of the educator as a decision-maker who integrates prior knowledge and experiences with new information to foster informed teaching practices and effective student learning outcomes. This framework aligns with a constructivist approach, highlighting the importance of reflective practice, continual professional development, and the capacity to adapt to diverse learner needs (Lago & Hart, 2018). Throughout this course, my understanding of this framework has deepened, significantly impacting my professional growth and perspective as an educator committed to lifelong learning and adaptability.

Initially, I viewed teaching primarily as the dissemination of knowledge; however, ongoing learning content revealed the importance of viewing myself as a decision-maker who must continually assess, reflect, and adapt instructional strategies. This shift aligns with the concept of reflective practice championed by Schön (1983), which encourages educators to critically analyze their experiences and foster professional growth. My thought processes evolved from a perception of fixed instructional methods to a more fluid understanding that effective teaching involves dynamic decision-making based on students' individual needs and contextual factors (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011).

One significant learning gain from modules 1-5 involved the use of assistive technology adaptations to promote independence in daily living. Initially, I underestimated the versatility of assistive technology (AT) in supporting students with diverse needs. Learning about the various AT adaptations, such as adaptive devices and software, illuminated how these tools empower individuals to perform daily tasks independently, fostering confidence and autonomy (McNaughton, 2018). For instance, computer-based communication aids can enable students with speech impairments to express themselves effectively, transforming their participation in classroom activities and social interactions.

Secondly, the features of effective AT assessments profoundly expanded my understanding of the crucial role comprehensive evaluations play in successful AT integration. I previously perceived assessments as a straightforward process focused mainly on identifying appropriate devices. However, the modules emphasized the importance of a collaborative, person-centered assessment that considers the user's preferences, environment, and specific communication needs (Borg & Tickle, 2019). The assessment process must be thorough, including evaluations of physical, sensory, and cognitive capabilities, to ensure an optimal person-technology match that truly enhances independence and participation.

Thirdly, exploring the components of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems expanded my perspective on how technology can be integrated with strategies to enhance communication among individuals with severe speech difficulties. I learned that AAC systems comprise various components, including symbol systems, hardware devices, and message delivery methods, which together create opportunities for daily communication in different environments (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013). Recognizing the importance of customizing AAC systems to individual needs and contexts enhances their effectiveness, enabling users to participate more fully in social, educational, and community settings.

These modules and their content have instigated a shift in my perspectives from viewing assistive technology as supplementary to recognizing it as integral to supporting independence and communication for diverse learners. They have clarified misconceptions about the simplicity of AT assessments and the adaptability of AAC systems, highlighting the importance of personalized, collaborative approaches rooted in thorough understanding and respect for individual differences.

As a future educator, I aim to incorporate these insights into my practice by continuously assessing my students' needs, advocating for appropriate assistive interventions, and fostering environments that support diverse communication and learning styles. I am now more confident in my capacity to evaluate assistive technologies critically and collaboratively, ensuring that their implementation genuinely enhances my students' quality of life and educational experiences.

Remaining questions include how emerging technologies may further transform AT assessment practices and the ethical considerations involved in deploying assistive devices in various cultural contexts. Clarifying these areas will enhance my ability to stay current and culturally responsive as I integrate assistive technology into my teaching practice.

References

  • Borg, J., & Tickle, A. (2019). Assistive Technology Assessment: Best Practices and Guidelines. Journal of Rehabilitation Science, 15(2), 45-59.
  • Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2011). Policies That Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81-92.
  • Lago, C., & Hart, S. (2018). Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning. Educational Leadership, 75(4), 86-89.
  • McNaughton, D. (2018). The Role of Assistive Technology in Promoting Independence. Communications of the ACM, 61(4), 52-57.
  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Basic Books.
  • Smith, J. P., & Johnson, K. M. (2020). Effective Communication Strategies for Students with Severe Speech Needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(3), 123-134.
  • Wang, Y., & Lee, A. (2021). Emerging Technologies in Assistive Devices and Their Impact on Daily Living. Assistive Technology Journal, 33(2), 98-107.
  • Yates, P., et al. (2017). Assessing Assistive Technology Needs: Person-Centered Practices. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 54(5), 589-602.
  • Zang, C., & Lee, S. (2019). Designing Effective AAC Systems: A User-Centered Approach. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(1), 67-75.

Related Assignments