Journal of Special Education Technology

Use of Technology to Accommodate Differences

Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder in
the General Curriculum and Environment
Candice Southall
Piedmont College

Without appropriate instructional supports, differences associated with autism spectrum disorder affect
successful access to the general curriculum. Individuals who have autism without comorbid intellectual
disabilities and language deficits require specific accommodations appropriate to their individual needs.
Assistive technology and Universal Design for Learning are approaches appropriate for accommodating the
needs of this population. The review examines the empirical research on technology-based accommodations
targeting differences that manifest as a result of autism spectrum disorder. Results indicate that specific
technologies include effective accommodations for social communication, restricted interests, and cognitive
differences. Research on technology-based accommodations for motor and sensory differences is limited;
however, practice implications and future research needs are discussed.

F
ederal legislation requires that all students, including
those individuals with autism spectrum disorder
(ASD), have access to the same general curriculum
standards as their typically developing peers before gradu-
ation (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). Individuals with
ASD are marked with impairments in social communi-
cation and restricted patterns of behavior, interests, and
activities. As a result of recent trends to increase focus on
early intervention and positive behavior supports, more
students with ASD are coming within reach of meeting
academic standards. Professional development on the
use of assistive technology (AT) and Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) to accommodate these students needs
broader attention, and practitioners need to be aware of
potential accommodations specific to differences that
manifest because of high functioning autism spectrum
disorder (HFASD).
In 2002, Thurlow defined accommodations as changes
in materials or procedures that provide access to instruc-
tion and assessments for students with disabilities (as
cited in Madaus, 2010, p. 1). Standard accommodations
include providing choices (word banks), frequent breaks,
preteaching, graphic organizers, highlighting important
information, priming, reading materials out loud, and
dictation (Spencer & Simpson, 2009). With appropriate
supports, students can accommodate their learning dis-
abilities to show true ability and knowledge (Madaus).
Characteristics manifesting as a result of HFASD require
special considerations different from those with learning
disabilities. Lack of access to individualized accommo-
dations results in poor outcomes in terms of reaching
maximum independence in adulthood for individuals
with a disability (Gregg, 2009).
Spooner, Dymond, Smith, and Kennedy (2006) identified
Universal Design as one of four approaches for provid-
ing acceptable access to general curriculum for students
with a disability. Universal Design is a system of arrang-
ing environments to meet the needs of a diverse student
population. It differentiates access to information from
access to learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Students with
vision impairments need access to information through
other modalities. Students with ASD have access to ma-
terials but need different formats to comprehend infor-
mation. For example, digital textbooks can be formatted

JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1 23

 Journal of Special Education Technology
and designed to meet the needs of all learners (Boone &
Higgins, 2007). The same digital book could include text
to speech for an individual with vision impairments and,
at the same time, highlight anaphoric cues for individuals
with ASD. Schools are looking at technology to use UDL
in classrooms to provide access to learning. The primary
difference between AT and Universal Design is that unlike
AT, Universal Design makes learning accessible to varied
styles of learners, which increases access to general educa-
tion content, enhances student participation, and creates
appropriately challenging curriculum (Gregg, 2009).
There are two key questions for individuals attempting to
research or implement accommodations for students with
HFASD. They are: What considerations are appropriate
for using low-, mid- and high-tech accommodations for
this population of students? And, how can effective and
individualized accommodations for pervasive differences
evident in the HFASD population be provided using cur-
rent technology?
Potential Technologies to
Accommodate Individuals with
HFASD
Although there is an abundance of research on technology-
based interventions for students on the autism spectrum
(e.g., video modeling, augmentative and alternative com-
munication devices, etc.), this technology primarily aims
to teach necessary skills that allow individuals from a
young age to function more independently (Goldsmith &
LeBlanc, 2004). However, research on best use of technolo-
gies to accommodate and increase successful inclusion in the
general curriculum for individuals with HFASD is limited.
Researchers must be persistent in their search for general-
izable accommodations to use in inclusive environments
while also considering how ASD manifests in individuals
without comorbid intellectual disabilities. With adequate
research on new technologies to accommodate individuals
with a disability, practitioners will be better informed on
which technological accommodations are appropriate and
available to help students with HFASD overcome barriers
to learning in inclusive environments. The purpose of this
review is to justify technology as a viable accommodation
for deficits in social communication, restricted interests,
and repetitive patterns of behavior along with cognitive,
motor, and sensory differences that manifest within this
24 
population by assimilating and summarizing literature
regarding technology.
A number of technologies are available to accommodate
the learning process and increase opportunities to access
general curriculum in more inclusive environments for
individuals with HFASD. Table 1 summarizes pertinent
descriptors of studies including individuals with ASD,
providing information on the difference accommodated,
technology, setting, dependent variables, and results.
Social Communication
Experts in the field of ASD have identified deficits in social
skills as the core characteristic of the disorder (Kanner,
1943; Witwer & Lecavalier, 2008). Often, these deficits
manifest as an inability to use contextual or social cues
as a means of engaging in the social world. Specifically,
these poor social skills often cause individuals with HFASD
to have difficulty integrating into the general education
environment due to inability to read unwritten social cues.
These social deficits often lead to teasing and bullying for
not fitting in (Humphrey & Symes, 2010). Goldsmith
and LeBlanc (2004) reported that virtual environments
could be beneficial to this population due to the control
of the social environment afforded by the technology.
Virtual environments that allow 3D representations of real-
world environments with real-time interaction have been
used to alleviate phobias (Rothbaum, Hodges, & Kooper,
1999) and to increase daily living skills (Brown, Standen,
Proctor, & Sterland, 2001). They are, however, limited in
research for the HFASD population. Virtual environments
can include systematic instruction, group environments
to encourage interactions, and modern technology to
present skills visually for individuals with HFASD. They
can provide increased opportunities to interact socially,
in a safe environment, thereby facilitating generalization.
Collaborative virtual environments allow for social interac-
tion while accommodating slower rates of responding, so
individuals with HFASD have time to think and process
situations. They accommodate the types of learners who do
not feel comfortable coming together physically by helping
them circumvent their social communication difficulties.
These environments use consistent facial expressions to
depict specific emotions. However, as a prerequisite, indi-
viduals with HFASD must be able to recognize avatar facial
expressions (Moore, Cheng, McGrath, & Powell, 2005).
Moore and colleagues evaluated the performance of 34
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
 Journal of Special Education Technology
individuals from schools with ASD services using collab-
orative virtual environment software to identify emotions
in isolation, emotions when provided in scenarios, and
plausible causes for various emotions. Most participants
(88%) performed better than chance. These results provide
evidence that collaborative virtual environments can be
of help to individuals with HFASD.
Parsons, Mitchell, and Leonard (2004) evaluated the
use of virtual environments for individuals with ASD in
terms of errors made and time spent completing tasks in
a virtual caf as well as social appropriateness of responses
(rating 0 3). A group design was used to compare each
of 12 students with ASD with both a verbal intelligence
quotient matched peer and a performance intelligence
quotient matched peer. Students received four training
trials on virtual environment tasks (following instructions,
inhibiting incorrect responses, keeping track of goals,
and coordinating equipment use). Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) indicated no significant difference between
matched pairs. Not only did students with ASD improve
equally to the performance intelligence quotient matched
peer group, but the ASD group also improved significantly
faster than the verbal intelligence quotient matched peer
group. Students with ASD displayed social appropriateness
with the exception of intention to avoid others. Adolescents
with HFASD have severe social and communication chal-
lenges that present special difficulties in the educational
milieu, particularly as they enter middle and high school
settings (Hendricks & Wehman, 2009; Howlin, 2003;
Willey, 2003). Now that these issues are receiving more
attention, there is a general interest regarding availability of
services and appropriate access to the general curriculum.
Research is beginning to indicate that virtual environments
are feasible accommodations for improved social interac-
tions for individuals with HFASD in learning situations.
Difficulties with emotional regulation challenge indi-
viduals with in social and academic situations. Students
with ASD have a greater risk of emotional breakdowns in
public places because of difficulty tolerating mistakes, low
tolerance for frustration, and high anxiety. All of these
can affect educational opportunities (Aspy & Grossman,
2008). Neurotypical people prefer conversations that are
fast paced and that consist of short exchanges. People
with HFASD are typically more precise and prefer to say
everything they have to say before stopping to wait for
others to respond. The Internet is a technology that pro-
vides for a delayed social response.
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
Davidson (2008) analyzed conventionally published auto-
biographies to estimate the use of online interaction as a
source of accommodating barriers to face-to-face interac-
tions. Describing them as new ways of self-identification,
individuals reported increased use of the Internet for social
interaction (e.g., chat rooms, email, online bulletin boards,
Second Life, Brigadoon, YouTube, advocacy groups). The
Internet challenges stereotypes of HFASD, including inabil-
ity to communicate effectively, and allows theses persons
to assert a sense of belonging to a specific cultural group.
It provides accommodations that facilitate appropriate
forms of social inclusion (Davidson, p. 795) and levels
the social and learning playing field.
In terms of social communication, poor pragmatics (i.e.,
an inability to engage in a conversation) and emotional
regulation hinder students from effectively expressing
knowledge and contributing to group discussions (Bolick,
2004). Educators often rely on group activities to assess
critical thinking and student performance. Compounding
this problem, educators who do not understand the social
challenges may misjudge students with HFASD and put
less effort into working with them (Aspy & Grossman,
2008). Virtual environments or online forums for group
work and projects can serve as effective accommodations
for general education coursework by reducing the emphasis
on effective social skills, thereby allowing students with
HFASD to demonstrate their true academic ability and
participate in collaborative work in a meaningful way.
Restricted Interests/Inflexible Thinking
The other diagnostic characteristic for ASD restricted
patterns of behavior, interests, and activitieslooks dif-
ferent in individuals without cognitive deficits as opposed
to students with greater symptom severity. Although stu-
dents with classic autism often present stereotypic and
self-stimulatory behaviors, students with HFASD are more
likely to have restricted and unusual interests that dominate
conversations and limit social interactions and make rein-
forcement difficult to provide (Macintosh & Dissanayake,
2004). Repetitive behaviors also create a strong need for
sameness, order, and predicting the environment. Students
with HFASD may become distressed because general educa-
tion classrooms have a large number of students and require
a great deal of flexibility. Unexpected transitions can be
very stressful events, causing meltdowns or aggression.
For example, attending a pep rally on Friday afternoon
without advance preparation can cause a child with HFASD
25
 Journal of Special Education Technology

Table 1

Study descriptors

Participants/
Study Technology Setting Dependent Variable Results
Social Communication Differences
Cheng & Ye (2010) Virtual 3 - School lab Social situations pictures, Increases in social situations pictures
environments (noninclusive) behavioral checklists. and behavioral checklist scores.
Parents expressed satisfaction.
Davidson (2008) Online 24 Use of Internet as a social Individuals with ASD reported in-
interaction N/A outlet crease in Internet use as social outlet.
Moore et al. (2005) Virtual 34 - Home Identified: No. of emo- 30/34 did better than chance.
environments (noninclusive) tions; No. of causes.
Parsons et al. Virtual 36 - Clinic No. of errors; duration; ASD group improved equally to
(2004) environments (inclusive) social appropriateness performance intelligence quotient
match and significantly faster than
verbal intelligence quotient match.
Restricted Interests
Bosseler & Computer ani- 6 - Clinic No. of vocabulary words All students increased number of
Massaro(2003) mation tutor (noninclusive) identified. words after intervention began.
Kinney et al. (2003) Video mod- 1 - Home/School No. of words spelled Demonstrated the usefulness of
eling with (noninclusive) correctly. program.
reinforcers
Moore & Calvert Computer 14 - School lab No. of words identified; Significant increase in no. of words
(2000) software (noninclusive) percent of time attending; identified and percent of time at-
no. of times choosing to tending to computer; as students
use software. attended more, they learned more.
Savidis et al. (2002) Online 5 (1 - ASD) Ratings of task Persons with ASD found it valuable
learning - Online completion; and motivating but too fast and
environment (noninclusive) desirability evaluation. confusing.
Schreibman et al. Video priming 3 - Community Percent of intervals Problem behaviors reduced and
(2000 (noninclusive) engaged in tantrum maintained after video priming with
behaviors. generalization.
Cognitive Differences
Dettmer et al. Visual sup- 2 - Community/ Latency with visual Decreases in latency and prompt
(2000) ports (low- School (inclusive) supports. level.
tech)+timer
Falconer (2008) Online 219 (ASD-like) User module evaluation; Well received; design and navigation
learning Online unsolicited feedback. appreciated and seen as helpful.
environment (inclusive)
Ferguson et al. Personal digital 1 - School Percent ind. task 24 47% increases.
(2005) assistant (inclusive) completion.
Gentry et al. (2010) Personal digital 22 - School Task performance; partici- Significant improvement in perfor-
assistant (inclusive) pant satisfaction. mance and satisfaction.
OConnor & Klein Embedded 20 - Home/ Percent of postread- Only anaphoric cueing produced
(2004) e-text School ing questions answered medium effects.
(noninclusive) correctly.
Roberts & Joiner Concept map 10 - School Competency-based assess- Significant increase in posttests
(2007) (inspiration) (noninclusive) ment; concept map scoring (large effect size); nonsignificant dif-
procedure 4-point scale ference for concept map.

26  JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1


to become very upset. In addition, students with HFASD
show impairments in ability to set shift, or transition
from one topic to another quickly. This results in slow
processing and reduced time learning (Tsatsanis, 2004).
To accommodate difficulties with transitions, activity
schedules can provide a primer for the days events and
serve as static reminders of the days progress for indi-
viduals with ASD (Bryan & Gast, 2000). Visual media
facilitate more success and independence than do other
forms of cues such as the ephemeral verbal cue and sign
language (Rehfeldt, Kinney, Root, & Stromer, 2004).
Microsoft PowerPoint is a widely used and compatible
multimedia technology that can be used for creating ac-
tivity schedules. PowerPoint allows teachers to combine
audio recording, video priming or prompting, and a timer.
Using such computer technology, students with ASD can
acquire schedule-following skills quickly and effectively
(Stromer, Kinney, Taylor, & Kimball, 2006). Within the
general education milieu, a PowerPoint activity schedule
could be shared easily among teachers to accommodate
the need of students with HFASD to follow the progress
of a days activities.
According to Carol Gray (2000), a Social Story is an
approach to providing students with accurate informa-
tion that can serve as a reassurance of future events and
expectations. A compressive review and meta-analysis by
Test, Richter, Knight, and Spooner (2011) suggests that
story-based interventions have been effective in improv-
ing social skills. Additionally, social narratives have been
identified as an accommodation for individuals with ASD,
serving as a primer to help students adjust to upcom-
ing activities and situations. Incorporating technology,
Schreibman, Whalen, and Stahmer (2002) found video
priming effective in accommodating young students who
have difficulty with transitions by reducing behaviors that
interfere with inclusion. The effects were maintained at
a one-month follow up and generalized to different and
new transition situations. It should be noted that priming
sessions should occur before activities, be low demand,
and have reinforcement accessible. Unlike social narra-
tives, video priming provides a technological model for
providing information to students who need a primer to
increase successful transitions.
In terms of reinforcement, it is well established that stu-
dents with ASD in general are not motivated by customary
rewards (e.g., praise or tokens), so technology can be key
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
Journal of Special Education Technology
in delivering reinforcement of increase desired behaviors
(Bregman, Zager, & Gerdts, 2005; Davidson, 2008; Klin,
McPartland, & Volkmar, 2005). To accommodate for this,
researchers have evaluated the effects of computer software
that incorporates enticing visuals to reinforce academic
progress. Three studies have found computer-delivered
reinforcement a viable option for learning. Bosseler and
Massaro (2003) used a multiple baseline design to evalu-
ate number of vocabulary words identified correctly for
six children with ASD. All students increased number of
words from baseline when using a computer-animated tutor
presentation of vocabulary lessons associating pictures with
spoken words with little to no overlapping data points.
Students made comments about enjoying the character
and working on the program.
Video modeling is evidence-based practice for teaching
skills to individuals with ASD (Charlop & Milstein, 1989;
Schreibman et al., 2002; Stromer et al., 2006: Taylor,
Levin, & Jasper, 1999), but research is beginning to suggest
that imbedding video clips tailored to student interest can
accommodate for students with ASD-restricted interests
and lack of motivation by customary rewards. Kinney et
al. (2003) conducted a case study on video modeling to
teach spelling. In addition to video modeling of spelling,
Kinney and colleagues included video rewards tailored to
content. Video modeling and positive reinforcement with
video miniclips for correct spellings increased the number
of words spelled correctly for the subject, a child with ASD.
Moore and Calvert (2000) used group design to evaluate
computer software for teaching words with behavioral
methods while infusing attention-getting features such as
sound effects and actions and contingent reinforcement for
14 children with ASD randomly selected to participate in
two conditions (computer and control). Results indicated
that the seven students in the computer group were signifi-
cantly more attentive, recalled more nouns after computer
presentation, and expressed greater interest in continuing
the computer program than did the students in the control
group. Teachers rely on behavioral principles to increase
learning. If students are not motivated by traditional
rewards, technology can remove that barrier while keep-
ing work dependent on student ability and effort. Fixated
interests, routines or rituals, and repetitive behaviors are
characteristic across all levels of the autism spectrum. These
differences can impact a students productivity in general
education coursework. Use of technology such as video
primers, PowerPoint schedules, and computer-delivered
27
 Journal of Special Education Technology
reinforcement are practical accommodations for individu-
als with HFASD.
Cognitive Differences
In the past, behavioral and social needs were more pressing
for individuals with ASD. Positive behavior change is occur-
ring sooner, with the increased focus on early intervention
putting students with mild impairments of ASD within
reach of academic gains. Therefore, researchers are giving
more attention to academic interventions and accommoda-
tions. Children with HFASD are likely to have a learning
disability in reading, written expression, and/or math (Aspy
& Grossman, 2008). At the same time, 95% of people
with ASD also demonstrate symptoms of attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Sturm, Fernell, & Gillberg,
2004). Weak central coherence and deficits in executive
functioning are two subdivisions of cognitive features
associated with ASD that impact learning. Problems for
individuals with HFASD are anticipated because of these
uneven profiles (e.g., synthesizing information, initiating
tasks, problem solving, etc.) (Falconer, 2008).
Central coherence. The theory of weak central coher-
ence attributed to individuals with ASD describes their
inability to integrate information to make a meaningful
whole (Aspy & Grossman, 2008). A good analogy for this
problem is not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Although being able to focus on details allows many
individuals with HFASD to become experts on a specific
interest, disadvantages of weak central coherence include
poor reading comprehension (Reitzel & Szatmari, 2003),
poor sense of audience during written expression (Mays
& Calhoun, 2003), and difficulty understanding math
word problems (Reitzel & Szatmari).
Graphic organizers accommodate weak central coher-
ence by helping students make meaning and understand
relationships with visual representations. They have been
found to be effective across content areas for students
with both neurotypical and specific learning disabilities
(Bulgren, Deshler, & Lenz, 2007; DiCecco & Gleason,
2002; Gallavan & Kottler, 2007; Ives & Hoy, 2003).
Graphic organizers are intended to motivate, improve in-
formation retrieval, increase understanding, create interest,
fight boredom, and organize thoughts. Sturm and Rankin-
Erikson (2002) evaluated electronic organizers for students
with learning disabilities using a group design comparing
a no-map condition, hand-drawn map condition, and
28 
computer-generated map condition (Inspiration 4.0).
ANOVA repeated measures within subjects showed signifi-
cant difference for computer-generated maps, specifically
with increases in number of words, t-units, holistic rating,
and general writer attitude in descriptive essays. Syntactic
complexity was not significantly different from baseline.
Writer attitude surveys indicated that students preferred
computer-generated concept maps because hand-drawn
maps did not provide enough room for writing in boxes.
Roberts and Joiner (2007) extended this research by com-
paring the electronic concept map with conventional
teaching methods for 10 middle school students with
ASD. Pre- and posttests indicate that using concept maps
(hand drawn or computer generated) caused significantly
greater differences with a large effect size. Although the
electronic concept map was scored more than double
the conventional method, it was a nonsignificant differ-
ence, possibly because of the low number of participants.
Practitioners should consider specific needs of students
with technological accommodations in mind. Having
the option of electronic organizers provides choices for
teachers and individuals to accommodate weak central
coherence, something with which many students with
HFASD struggle.
Classroom learning is helpful to socialization and group
learning, but it is not the best delivery method for all
education. Classroom learning cannot be adapted easily
to different approaches to learning. The classroom model
continues to be the prominent delivery method because
past technologies, such as the blackboard and projec-
tor, have facilitated that kind of learning environment
(Falconer, 2008). However, electronic media encourages
discovery, fosters independence, and should be considered
within Universal Design. To accommodate students in
general education settings, use of Universal Design pro-
vides delivery options from which all students can ben-
efit. For example, OConnor and Klein (2004) evaluated
three different approaches (anaphoric cueing, prereading
questions to attach meaning, and cloze) using embedded
e-text to accommodate reading comprehension deficits for
20 high school students with ASD. Anaphoric cueing is a
substitution for a previous word, usually a pragmatic or
more easily understood word used to explain or clarify
that word (potentially problematic due to a pronoun im-
pacted by social communication and/or difficulties with
pragmatics). Using group design to measure the number
of postreading questions answered correctly, providing
a reference to an anaphora was the only strategy that
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
 Journal of Special Education Technology
increased reading comprehension for individuals with
ASD. Research shows that individuals usually perform
better when prior knowledge is activated with prereading
questions (OConnor & Klein); however, students with
ASD in this study often activated inaccurate or incorrect
prereading ideas, and then perseverated on them during
reading. This might explain why the prereading condition
had a no significant to a negative effect. These issues are
important in terms of embedded e-text with highlighting
capabilities. While other students benefit from embedded
questions or cloze (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006), a student
with ASD also could be accommodated with anaphoric
cuing within the same e-text. Provisions of e-text and the
ability to individualize the accommodation allows for
appropriate support for all struggling students.
Accommodating weak central coherence, online learning
environments can reorganize material for the benefit of
the learner. It is a design technique to help all students
gain meaning and understanding with differential orga-
nization of content. The use of metaphor has potential
when applied to online learning environments. Falconer
(2008) evaluated a metaphor-driven online learning re-
source program with user module evaluation feedback and
unsolicited feedback from blogs and web postings. Two
hundred nineteen postgraduates with characteristics of
HFASD participated in the online learning environment.
The metaphor used, Research Observatory, was generally
well received by individuals, and metaphoric design and
navigation was appreciated and seen as helpful. As on-
line learning increasingly becomes an option for general
education content delivery, the use of metaphor within
the design can accommodate students who have difficulty
pulling pieces together into a whole.
Executive function. Executive function refers to cognitive
functioning that controls processes such as working memo-
ry, concentration, behavior inhibition, planning, initiation,
performance monitoring, and self-regulationdeficits in
these areas make organization, time management, and
progress monitoring during work very distressing (Aspy
& Grossman, 2008). Students with HFASD presenting
with executive dysfunction struggle in general education
environments that are not supportive. Technology used
as an accommodation for executive functioning across
many disabilities includes timers, personal digital assistants
(PDAs), voice recorders, applications for self-management,
and online learning environments (Goldsmith & LeBlanc,
2004).
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
Activity schedules can play a valuable role in the day of a
student with HFASD. Bryan and Gast (2000) used using
activity schedules to effectively accommodate poor time
management and organizational skills for individuals with
ASD. To evaluate use of a mid-tech accommodationan
electronic timerwith a visual schedule and finished
box, Dettmer, Simpson, Myles, and Ganz (2000) used
a single-subject withdrawal design with two elementary
age boys with ASD in an inclusive class. Decreases in la-
tency from instruction to initiating the next activity were
observed upon intervention, and baseline rates returned
after the timer and other low-tech accommodations were
removed. Wilkinson (2005; 2008) evaluated the use of
a timer to accommodate executive dysfunction for two
upper elementary students with HFASD. Students were
instructed to set a timer to provide an alert to self-assess
behavior at regular intervals. Wilkinsons observations
indicated a correlation between using timers, decreasing
disruptive behavior, and increasing compliance and percent
of time on task. Timers are a simple and readily available
accommodation to support executive dysfunction that so
commonly hinders success of individuals with HFASD in
the general curriculum.
Students with HFASD who struggle in school are not in-
tentionally disorganized. Appropriate accommodations are
imperative to facilitate successful participation in typical
classrooms. PDA s have been used to increase planning
and organization for individuals with HFASD. Ferguson,
Myles, and Hagiwara (2005) evaluated the use of a PDA
with a 14-year-old with HFASD. A multiple probe across
research design settings showed increases in percent of task
completion in the morning and evening home activities and
school tasks when using the PDA. Myles, Ferguson, and
Hagiwara (2007) also used a PDA to accommodate execu-
tive function deficits of a 17-year-old male with HFASD. A
multiple baseline across settings design compared percent
of correctly entering homework into an agenda with enter-
ing information into a PDA. One session of instructions
was used to help the student identify salient information
to be entered in the PDA across settings. Overall, the PDA
increased his homework assignment recording by 29%.
Most recently, Gentry, Wallace, Kuarfordt, and Lynch
(2010) provided a training intervention in using a PDA
as a task management tool for 22 high school students
with HFASD. The Canadian Occupational Performance
Measurement was used to rate life task performance, and
the Functional Assessment Tool for Cognitive Assistive
Technology was used to rate participant satisfaction. Paired
29
 Journal of Special Education Technology
sample t-tests indicated a significant improvement in both
performance and satisfaction on everyday life tasks follow-
ing training with the PDA. All studies evaluating PDA s
for individuals with ASD reported minimal time spent on
training. Additionally, students with HFASD maintain and
generalize technological accommodations best when they
appear natural and unobtrusive, as do PDA s.
Motor Differences
Motor differences have a pervasive impact for most in-
dividuals with ASD, because many social and academic
skills are learned through movement (Baranek, 2002).
Writing classes, science labs, and art classes are examples
of places where kinesthetic learning occurs. Within the
educational environment, motor differences cause poor
or laborious handwriting. Myles, Huggins, Rome-Lake,
Hagiwara, Barnhill, and Griswold (2003) analyzed writ-
ten language of individuals with ASD. Recommendations
specifically for individuals with HFASD included provisions
for using word processing technology. Roberts and Joiner
(2007) suggested that students did not prefer hand-drawn
concept maps due to limited, nonadjustable space. Myles
et al. (2007) found PDAs effective in recording homework
assignments when compared to writing assignments on an
agenda. They attributed some of the increases seen with
entering assignments electronically to accommodating
handwriting difficulties experienced by those with HFASD.
Use of word processing and other electronic information
input such as iPods and other student response systems
should be considered to accommodate motor differences
of individuals with HFASD. At the same time, Universal
Design should support interactive teaching practices and
the provision of student feedback.
Cavalier and Ferretti (1996) describe the extensive use
of speech recognition technology to optimize student
performance and goal attainment for tasks that require
a great deal of hand and eye coordination. Studies and
clinical reports reviewed demonstrate that speech recogni-
tion software can be used effectively to help students with
a disability gain active control over their environment
(Cavalier & Ferretti, p. 88). Based on how the motor
differences of individuals with HFASD impact academic
performance assessed through writing, speech recognition
software should be considered as an option. While research
has demonstrated that word processing and speech-to-
text software are effective accommodations for motor
30 
differences, no research with the ASD population and this
technology has been conducted.
Sensory Differences
Harrison and Hare (2004) found that 70% to 80% of
students with ASD have sensory processing differences
either hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity. This can cause
distorted perception, sensory overload, or confusion of
sensory channels. Unusual responses to light, sound, color,
temperature, or odors need to be addressed in classrooms
to allow for learning without distractions. Davidson (2010)
drew upon 45 autobiographical texts of individuals with
ASD to find themes and make conclusions about what
accommodations best accommodate sensory differences.
Barriers are present in the environment that limit access
by people with individual sensory differences. On a global
level, Davidson found that many individuals with ASD
feel bombarded with sensory information (p. 308) and
cannot process its meaning. Additionally, each of the five
senses can limit access to general education environments
and need to be considered for appropriate accommoda-
tions. White noise machines, noise-canceling headsets, and
incandescent rather than florescent lighting are consider-
ations to increase successful inclusion in school. The use of
computers, such as for online learning and electronic text,
can meet individual needs through adjustments to visual
and auditory settings. Although qualitative information
implies that functions of most technological aids can be
adapted to accommodate sensory needs of individuals with
ASD, no experimental evidence is available to support this.
Discussion
During the past 10 years, the prevalence of ASD has in-
creased. Fombonne (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of
autism prevalence studies, finding the estimate to be 2
in 1,000 people. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (2012) reported that in 2008, an estimated
1 in 88 children had been identified with ASD. In turn,
the number of children with ASD participating in gen-
eral education is increasing. Benefits of inclusion include
increased social interaction, age-appropriate interaction,
and improved academics and language skills. In addition,
typically developing students benefit by developing a sense
of individual differences, compassion, and understanding
of individual needs. Negative impacts include distractions,
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
 Journal of Special Education Technology
noise, and feelings of frustration as students struggle with
increased activity in class (Finke, McNaughton, & Drager,
2009). Moreover, teachers perceive more work, as it is
difficult to manage and organize with greater diversity
in classrooms.
Current research on technology-based accommodations for
individuals with ASD indicates that options are available.
Emerging research on technology-based accommodations
for social communication differences include virtual en-
vironments and online learning. Differences in restricted
interests for individuals on the autism spectrum hinder
learning through poor motivation. Studies show that not
only do many individuals with ASD prefer a computer
medium, but computer software also can effectively incor-
porate reinforcement with video miniclips. Weak central
coherence can be accommodated technologically through
electronic concept maps and e-text. This technology can
be individualized to meet each students specific needs.
Electronic concept map findings are equal to or more
accommodating than both traditional teaching methods
and hand-drawn concept maps for students on the autism
spectrum. Additionally, studies determined that timers
and PDA s are worthwhile as accommodations for execu-
tive dysfunction.
Technology such as timers (Wilkinson, 2005; 2008),
computer software (Moore & Calvert, 2000), online learn-
ing environments (Falconer, 2008), and PDA s (Ferguson
et al., 2005; Gentry et al., 2010; Myles et al., 2007) in
isolation have been found effective as accommodations.
However, to maximize the success of students with ASD
in general education environments, practitioners may need
to consider all possible applications that can be used on
one device. Corporations such as Apple and Microsoft are
providing ways to convert text to alternate forms for better
compatibility, speech recognition, and word prediction
while Google is catching on with digital media (Gregg,
2009, p. 17). E-books and other digital technology have
inherent flexibility critical for Universal Design (Rose &
Meyer, 2002). New Smartphone and PDA technology
provides a number of accommodations all in one hand-held
device. Global positioning systems, timers, counters, self-
management applications, calendars, and voice recorders
are just a few things to consider when accommodating
students with ability to succeed who have obstacles to
overcome. Neither accommodations nor technology are
one size fits all. Nevertheless, as built-in access becomes
more readily available, AT will better merge with Universal
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
Design. The key is to ensure that technology efficiently
accommodates individual differences so that students with
HFASD can access, participate, and progress in the general
curriculum and reach their true potential.
Accommodations are bridges that allow students with
disabilities to access learning. Students with ASD de-
scribe inclusive educational environments as typically
unsupported and unable to meet their needs as learners
(Falconer, 2008). As Kimball and Smith (2007) noted,
few accommodations have been developed or tested with
individuals with HFASD. As technology continues to
advance, service providers will have more tools available
to more easily accommodate differences in the HFASD
population. Still, problematic aspects of technology need
to be considered. For example, it is possible that the bells
and whistles of technology inadvertently may reinforce
inappropriate behavior. Within most programs, there is
the inability to make changes in the schedule of rein-
forcements. Preprogrammed software could potentially
compromise motivation with limited reinforcers while also
containing limited exemplars and providing little attention
to stimulus control. Practitioners also must consider that
the technology may preclude errorless learning with poor
prompts and prompt fading. Graetz (2009) suggests that
considerations for technology use include simplicity of
implementation, maintenance, and training. He also en-
courages the consideration of high-tech solutions because,
with the right support, implementation can be seamless.
Although the purpose of this article was not to provide a
comprehensive review or meta-analysis, looking for po-
tential technologies to accommodate those with HFASD
revealed that the limited number and diversity of studies
makes it difficult to provide clear and specific recommen-
dations regarding use of technology. Limitations within
the current research on technology-based accommoda-
tions include a lack of effective evaluation for their effi-
ciency against low-tech accommodations. School districts
have a limited amount of federal, state, and local agency
funding, so AT needs to be efficient in terms of cost and
training. Evaluation and discussion of the ecological va-
lidity of technology is lacking. For example, Smartphone
technology appears both interesting and promising, but
these devices can be easily lost or broken. In addition,
development and use of technology takes a great deal of
expertise and involves a great deal of cost. The published
research does not sufficiently describe how technology can
be monitored for effectiveness. Service providers should
31
 Journal of Special Education Technology
analyze the effectiveness of the devices and adjust programs
appropriately, while researchers need to persist in evaluat-
ing technology as it accommodates specific differences of
individuals with HFASD.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorder (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Aspy, R., & Grossman, B.G. (2008). Designing comprehensive inter-
ventions for individuals with high-functioning autism and Asperger
Syndrome: The ziggurat model. Shawnee Mission, KA: Autism
Asperger.
Baranek, G.T. (2002). Efficacy of sensory and motor interventions
for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 32, 397 422.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Reading nexta vision for
action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to
Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education.
Bolick, T. (2004). Asperger syndrome and adolescence: Helping preteens
and teens get ready for the real world. Glouster, MA: Fair Winds
Press.
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). New directions in research: The
role of instructional design in assistive technology research and
development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 135 140.
Bosseler, A., & Massaro, D.W. (2003). Development and evaluation
of a computer-animated tutor for vocabulary and language learn-
ing in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 33, 253 272.
Bregman, J.D., Zager, D., & Gerdts, J. (2005). Behavioral interven-
tions. In F.R. Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.),
Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (3rd ed.,
pp. 897924). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brown, D., Standen, P., Proctor, T., & Sterland, D. (2001). Advanced
design methodologies for the production of virtual learning en-
vironments for use by people with learning disabilities. Presence:
Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10, 401 415.
Bryan, L., & Gast, D. (2000). Teaching on-task and on-schedule
behaviors to high-functioning children with autism via picture
activity schedules. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
30, 553.
Bulgren, J., Deshler, D., & Lenz, B. (2007). Engaging adolescents
with LD in higher order thinking about history concepts using
integrated content enhancement routines. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 40, 121133.
Cavalier, A., & Ferretti, R. (1996). Talking instead of typing: Alternate
access to computers via speech recognition technology. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 79 88.
32 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Prevalence of
autism spectrum disordersautism and developmental disabilities
monitoring network, 14 Sites, United States, 2008. MMWR 2012;
61 (No. SS-16):118.
Charlop, M.H., & Milstein, J.P. (1989). Teaching autistic children
conversational speech using video modeling. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 22, 275 285.
Cheng, Y., & Ye, J. (2010). Exploring the social competence of stu-
dents with autism spectrum conditions in a collaborative virtual
learning environmentthe pilot study. Computers & Education,
54, 1068 1077.
Davidson, J. (2008). Autistic culture online: Virtual communication
and cultural expression on the spectrum. Social & Cultural Geog-
raphy, 9, 791 806. doi: 10.1080/14649360802382586
Davidson, J. (2010). It cuts both ways: A relational approach to ac-
cess and accommodation for autism. Social Science & Medicine,
70, 305 312. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.017
Dettmer, S., Simpson, R., Myles, B., & Ganz, J. (2000). The use of
visual supports to facilitate transitions of students with autism.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 163 169.
doi: 10.1177/108835760001500307.
DiCecco, V.M., & Gleason, M.M. (2002). Using graphic organiz-
ers to attain relational knowledge form expositor text. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35, 306 320.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.X.C. 1400 et
seq. (1975).
Falconer, L. (2008). Evaluating the use of metaphor in online learning
environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16, 117129.
doi: 10.1080/10494820701288626
Ferguson, H., Myles, B.S., & Hagiwara, T., (2005). Using a personal
digital assistant to enhance the independence of an adolescent
with Asperger syndrome. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 40, 60 67.
Finke, E.H., McNaughton, D.B., & Drager, K.D.R. (2009). All
children can and should have the opportunity to learn: General
education teachers perspectives on including children with autism
spectrum disorder who require AAC. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 25, 110 122.
Fombonne, E. (1999). The epidemiology of autism: A review. Psycho-
logical Medicine, 29, 760 786.
Gallavan, N., & Kottler, E. (2007). Eight types of graphic organiz-
ers for empowering social studies students and teachers. Social
Studies, 98, 117128.
Gentry, T., Wallace, J., Kuarfordt, C., & Lynch, K.B. (2010). Personal
digital assistants as cognitive aids for high school students with
autism: Results of a community based trial, Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 32, 101107.
Goldsmith, T.R., & LeBlanc, L.A. (2004). Use of technology in in-
terventions for children with autism. Journal of Early and Intensive
Behavior Intervention, 1, 166 177.
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
 Journal of Special Education Technology
Graetz, J. (2009) Effective academic instruction for students with high
functioning autism or Aspergers syndrome. In V.G. Spencer &
C.G. Simpson (Eds.), Teaching children with autism in the general
classroom (pp. 45 74). Waco, TX: Proofrock Press.
Gray, C. (2000). The new social stories book. Arlington, TX: Future
Horizons.
Gregg, N. (2009). Adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and
ADHD. New York, NY: Guilford.
Harrison, J., & Hare, D. (2004). Brief report: Assessment of sensory
abnormalities in people with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 727730.
Hendricks, D.R., & Wehman, P. (2009). Transition from school to
adulthood for youth with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 77 88.
Howlin, P. (2003). Outcome in high-functioning adults with autism
with and without early language delays: Implications for the
differentiation between autism and Asperger syndrome.Jour-
nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 3 13. doi:
10.1023/A:1022270118899
Humphrey, N., & Symes (2010). Responses to bullying and use of
social support among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in
mainstream secondary schools: A qualitative study. Journal of
Research in Special Education Needs, 10, 82 90.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, PL 108
446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
Inspiration 4.0 [computer software]. Beaverton, OR: Inspiration
Software, Inc.
Ives, B., & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-
level secondary mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 18, 36 51.
Jerome, M.K. (2009). Using instructional technology in the class-
rooms. In V.G. Spencer & C.G. Simpson (Eds.), Teaching children
with autism in the general classroom (pp. 124 160). Waco, TX:
Proofrock Press.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous
Child, 2, 217250.
Kimball, J.W., & Smith, K. (2007). Crossing the bridge: From best
practices to software packages. Focus on Autism and Other Devel-
opmental Disabilities, 22, 131134.
Kinney, E.M., Vedora, J., & Stromer, R. (2003). Computer-presented
video models to teach generative spelling to a child with an autism
spectrum disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5,
22 29.
Klin, A., Mcpartland, J., & Volkmar, F.R. Asperger syndrome (2005).
In F.R. Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Hand-
book of Autism and pervasive developmental disorders (3rd ed., pp.
88 125). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Macintosh, K.E., & Dissanayake, C. (2004). Annotation: The simi-
larities and differences between autistic disorder and Aspergers
disorder: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 421 434.
JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1
Madaus, J. (2010). Accommodations at the college level. In S.F. Shaw,
J.W. Madaus, & L.L. Duckes (Eds.), Preparing students with dis-
abilities for college success: A practical guide to transition planning
(pp. 37 64).Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Mays, S.D., & Calhoun, S.L. (2003). Relationship between Asperger
syndrome and high-functioning autism. In M. Prior (Ed.), Learn-
ing and behavior problems in Asperger syndrome (pp. 15 32). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Moore, D., Cheng, Y., McGrath, P., & Powell, N.J. (2005). Collab-
orative virtual environment technology for people with autism.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 231243.
Moore, M., & Calvert, S. (2000). Brief report: Vocabulary acquisi-
tion for children with autism: Teacher or computer instructions.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 359 362.
Myles, B.S., Huggins, A., Rome-Lake, M., Hagiwara, T., Barnhill, G.
P., & Griswold, D.E. (2003). Written language profile of children
and youth with Asperger syndrome: From research to practice.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 362 369.
Myles, B., Ferguson, H., & Hagiwara, T. (2007). Using a personal
digital assistant to improve the recording of homework assignments
by an adolescent with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 96 99.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 Section 6301 et seq.
OConnor, I.M., & Klein, P.D. (2004). Exploration of strategies
for facilitating the reading comprehension of high-functioning
students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 34, 115 127.
Parsons, S., Mitchell, P., & Leonard, A. (2004). The use and un-
derstanding of virtual environments by adolescents with autistic
spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders,
34, 449 466.
Rehfeldt, R.A., Kinney, E.M., Root, S., & Stromer, R. (2004).
Creating activity schedules using Microsoft PowerPoint. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 115 128.
Reitzel, J., & Szatmari, P. (2003). Cognitive and academic problems.
In M. Prior (Ed.), Learning and behavior problems in Asperger
syndrome (pp. 35 54). New York, NY: Guilford.
Roberts, V., & Joiner, R. (2007). Investigating the efficacy of concept
mapping with pupils with autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal
of Special Education, 34, 127135.
Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital
age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Rothbaum, B.O., Hodges, L.F., & Kooper, R. (1999). The use of
virtual reality exposure therapy in the treatment of anxiety dis-
orders. Behavior Modification, 23, 507525.
Savidis, A., Grammenos, D., & Stephanidis, C. (2006). Developing
inclusive e-learning systems. Universal Access in the Information
Society, 5(1), 5172.
Schreibman, L., Whalen, C., & Stahmer, A. (2002). Use of video
priming to reduce the disruptive transitions behavior for children
with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 3 11.
Spencer, V.G., & Simpson, C.G. (Eds.) (2009). Teaching children
with autism in the general classroom. Waco, TX: Proofrock Press.
33
 Journal of Special Education Technology

Spooner, F., Dymond, S.K., Smith, A., & Kennedy, C.H. (2006). Thurlow, M. (2002). Positive educational results for all students.
What we know and need to know about accessing the general Remedial and Special Education, 23, 195.
curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Re-
Tsatsanis, K.D. (2004). Heterogeneity in learning style in Asperger
search and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 277283.
syndrome and high-functioning autism. Topics in Language Dis-
Stromer, R., Kinney, E., Taylor, B., & Kimball, J. (2006). Activity orders, 24, 260 270.
schedules, computer technology, and teaching children with autism
Wilkinson, L. (2005). Supporting the inclusion of a student with
spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Asperger syndrome: A case study using conjoint behavioral con-
Disabilities, 21, 14 24.
sultation and self-management. Educational Psychology in Practice,
Sturm, H., Fernell, E., & Gillberg, C. (2004). Autism spectrum 21, 307326.
disorders in children with normal intellectual levels: Associated
Wilkinson, L. (2008). Self-management for children with high-
impairments and subgroups. Developmental Medicine & Child
functioning autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in School &
Neurology, 46, 444 447.
Clinic, 43, 150 157.
Sturm, J.M., & Rankin-Erikson, J.L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn
Willey, L.H. (Ed.). (2003). Asperger syndrome in adolescence: Living
and computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writ-
with the ups, the downs and things in between. Philadelphia, PA:
ing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning
Jessica Kingsly.
Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 124 139.
Witwer, A.N., & Lecavalier, L. (2008). Examining the validity of
Taylor, B.A., Levin, L., & Jasper, S. (1999). Increasing play-related
autism spectrum disorder subtypes. Journal of Autism Developmental
statements in children with autism toward their siblings: Effects
Disorders, 38, 16111624.
of video modeling. Journal of Developmental and Physical Dis-
abilities, 11, 253 264.
Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act, Author Notes
P.L. 100 407, (1988).
Candice Southall is an assistant professor of special education,
Test, D.W., Richter, S., Knight, V., & Spooner, F. (2011). A compre- Piedmont College, Athens, Georgia. Correspondence should be
hensive review and meta-analysis of the social stories literature. addressed to Candice Southall, Piedmont College, 595 Prince
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26, 49 62.
Ave., Athens, GA 30601. Email to csouthall@piedmont.edu
doi: 10.1177/1088357609351573

34  JSET 2013 Volume 28, Number 1

Copyright of Journal of Special Education Technology is the property of Technology &
Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (TAM) and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.