ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 1
Literature Review
Malcolm Taylor
School of Education, Liberty University
Abstract
This literature review explores whether students with disabilities who use assistive technology
(AT) during reading assessments perform better than their peers who do not. It starts by
highlighting the large number of students in K–12 schools with learning disabilities and the
challenges they face during reading assessments, such as cultural bias, time pressure, test
anxiety, and a lack of accommodations. The review also explains the significance of reading
assessments for early detection of reading problems and how AT can help support student in
their areas of opportunity. AT tools like text-to-speech and reading software have shown
positive outcomes on reading comprehension, focus, and student confidence. The review also
connects
AT to educational theories like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Vygotsky’s Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD), discussing how these tools can be effective frameworks for
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 2
diverse learners. Although the research shows strong benefits of AT, it also points out limits. For
example, limitations like lack of access in low-income or rural districts, underdeveloped tools,
and mixed feelings from students. Finally, the paper highlights how school funding (i.e., often
affected by unfair district mapping) impacts the availability of AT for many students.
Keywords: Assistive Technology (AT), learning disabilities, dyslexia, education, text-to-speech, tts,
speech-to-text, stt, digital technology
Literature Review: Do students with disabilities with assistive technology on reading
assessments perform better than their peers that arent?
There is a significant number of students in K-12 education who have learning disability.
According to research, in the 2022–2023 school year, approximately 7.5 million students
received special education and related services (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024).
Statistically, that number accounts for 15% of all public schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA is a federal mandate that ensures eligible students with
disabilities have access to a free and adequate public education. There are several kinds of
learning disabilities found among K-12 education students. The most common disability is
dyslexia, which impairs an individual’s ability to read, write, and spell fluently (Kunwar &
Sapkota, 2022). It is a language-based condition as it directly impacts how the brain processes a
language. However, while it is a language-based condition it doesn’t impair intelligence overall.
Other common learning disabilities are dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and auditory processing
disorder (APD). Some people highlight ADHD as another common disability, but it isn’t a
disability itself. It coexists with the other disabilities by exacerbating conditions in a sense.
Moreover, someone with ADHD coupled with a learning disability has a more challenging time
focusing on learning.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 3
General Challenges Faced in Reading Assessments.
Generally, reading assessments are painful to overcome for the average student as it is.
However, conditions are worse when an individual is required to take the assessment while
battling a learning disability. Reading assessments can be difficult for many reasons. Primarily,
reading assessments are challenging due to validity and readability. According to research,
assessments tend to be dull in truly measuring what it is designed to measure (Bartolomé &
Garaizar, 2022). Many reading assessments aren’t well-grounded or sound enough to ensure the
outcomes of scores are trustworthy. This lack thereof makes them very faulty when assessing
the validity of their scores. Subsequently, critics argue that reading assessments lack consistent
and accurate measurement over time (Afflerbach, 2025; van Zyl et al., 2024). Another common
challenge with reading assessment is cultural bias. Reading assessments are designed to test
standardly lacking a sense of normalcy across the board (Francois & Hood, 2021). Moreover, the
tests are not designed to be learner-friendly for minority students. Standardized reading
assessments often include unfamiliar language and references that minority students do not
understand considering their cultural background. With minority students not being able to
decipher the phrases or references given their lack of inclusion, their comprehension skills are
poor.
Time constraints are an issue too for many test takers. Time constraints limit the tester’s
ability to accurately utilize their knowledge and skills (Gonzalez, 2004). Many students feel
rushed. In turn, they make hasty decisions that they wouldn’t have if they weren’t forced to
move so quickly. Time constraints play a significant role in fostering another problem that test
takers battle: anxiety. Research suggests that anxiety, specifically test anxiety, harms reading
performance (Sylvia et al., 2023; Ismail et al., 2022; Roos et al., 2021). Anxiety directly cripples
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 4
one’s ability to cognitively function and remember things that can facilitate their thinking skills
(Stella, 2022). It also doesn’t help that teachers add to this stress as they face the stress of
expectations demanding their students perform well. Therefore, teachers will inadvertently
overwhelm their students with expectations eroding their testing confidence.
Lastly, there is a steep lack of accommodations for students with disabilities. Reading
assessments are not designed to adapt to the specific learning disabilities faced by students.
Aside from students battling with disabilities like dyslexia, some students have trouble
understanding as the tests are in their second language. English and its historical context, are
very challenging to grasp by non-American students. Language aside, some students struggle
with the language as they are non-verbal.
Significance of Reading Assessments for Disabled Students
Factoring together all the general problems with general reading assessments, the
concern is worse when adding learning disabilities into the mix. Again, students are not only
required to overcome the general drawbacks of reading. But now, they are expected to exceed
learning expectations while battling their learning disability. Reading assessments are critical
tools for students with learning disabilities for many reasons. Therefore, more conversations are
needed regarding this topic to ensure that all students put their best foot forward on a level
playing field.
Primarily, reading assessments foster early detection of reading disabilities. Students at
risk of developing a reading disorder are often overlooked in the general sense of students. It is
hard to focus on a subset of the population when there is not a fair tool to measure reading
abilities. Early identification of reading disability can help developers implement necessary and
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 5
timely interventions that can accommodate those in need. Reading assessments are also
effective because they can provide an overview of a student’s strengths and weaknesses. The
reading assessment can help developers, teachers, and parents to highlight specific areas of
opportunities like decoding, fluency, overall comprehension, and even vocabulary (DeVries,
2023).
Research also indicates that data from disabled student reading assessments help tailor
teaching methods (Jungjohann & Gebhardt, 2023). Teachers can adjust their material to the
specific needs of the disabled child. They can implement adaptive learning and target areas on
their results. This is where assistive technology comes into play because it gives teachers room
to explore learning aids that can positively impact retention skills. Reading assessments also
impact evaluating interventions. Moreover, teachers can track their students’ progress and
determine which aids are useful and which ones are a waste of time.
By making necessary adjustments, teachers strengthen the confidence of their students.
Research indicates how reading assessments can empower students as the individual can
holistically review their accomplishments (Willam & Quadry, 2025). Students can grasp their
achievements when they have tangible proof of their improvement. Consequently, they can
build their confidence and test better with time. By the same token, reading assessments can
empower parents’ information about their child’s reading development. Access to this
information can reduce parental stress (Plaatjies, 2024).
Role of Assistive Technology (AT)
The role of assistive technology has gradually become an effective resource for assisting
students with disabilities. One of the leading reasons for its success is based on the wide range
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 6
of tools and devices developed to accommodate different learning levels (Kumar et al., 2021).
Assistive technology has led to innovative developments like reading glasses to high-end
techsavvy inventions like brain-computer interfaces (Peddie & Guttage, 2023). Other key aspects
of the growing role of AT are the outright improvement of educational outcomes, enhanced
functional abilities, increased autonomy and overall quality of life, facilitative inclusion, social
participation, and emerging and continuous research (Chang et al., 2025; Ercan Doğu &
Gündoğmuş, 2025); Ianniello & Corona, 2024).
Historical Context
The road to AT is not an overnight sensation. Its emergence stemmed from increasing
recognition and inclusion rooted within the frameworks of IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was one of the first founding pieces of legislation
to ban discrimination based on disability for programs receiving federal funding (Warden, 2023).
it highlighted the foundation for students with disabilities forcing programs to include all types
of student learning types so they could access a fair education. Many educators were required
to develop a 504 plan to outline specific accommodations that were necessary to support the
student with their disability and learning environment. Section 504 encompasses a host of
disabilities including mental health disorders (Nafziger, 2023).
Following Section 504, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) expanded
the foundation for fostering inclusive education. Copying the concept of a 504 plan, IDEA
created IEPs (i.e., individualized education programs) that featured AT as a related service
(Schwartz et al., 2021). Although sometimes assumed interchangeably IEPs are different than
504 plans. 504 plans force educators to provide accommodations and modifications in the
general sense of education (Spiel et al., 2014). IEPs hyperfocus on the individual. IEPs are unique
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 7
plans designed for the overall learning improvement of one child as opposed to the entire class.
For example, a 504 plan may suggest that students may need text-to-speech to understand the
reading material. However, the IEPs specify which students specifically, need the tool.
Copying the premise of Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
emerged to add more protections for individuals with disabilities. It expanded coverage of
inclusion to students in both private and public school settings (Gostin, 2015). The ADA also
revised protection for post-secondary institutions. The ADA differed from IDEA and Section
504 by hyper-focusing on reasonable accommodations and accessibility. The ADA protections
were initiated from the start of admissions, overall access to programs, and extracurricular
activities (Bernstein, 2014). The ADA promoted accessibility to ensure schools addressed
physical barriers that would affect students with disabilities. For example, students who
required the use of a wheelchair were accommodated with having easy access to enter
buildings or access restrooms.
Overview of Assistive Technology in Education
Going back to reading disabilities like dyslexia, assistive technology helps students with
functions like text-to-speech software. Students are able to hear the text out loud, which
increases their comprehension skills (Wood et al., 2018). Instead of trying to focus on struggling
through their disability using most of their brain power, text-to-speech opens up their brain
space to process information. Moreover, the information they are trying to grasp is clearer
because they don’t have mental blockage. AT also increases engagement (Christopoulos et al.,
2018). Again, with students not being overwhelmed trying to understand what they are reading,
they get to merely focus on engaging in the context. Some students can visualize what they are
reading when listening, which overall helps them connect the dots in the reading. They don’t
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 8
miss minute details of the plot that can help them answer any question to measure their
understanding. AT like interactive learning apps and e-books increased engagement significantly
(Chen & Tsai, 2025).
AT also improves focus and concentration (Ayon & Dillon, 2021). AT tools have developed
innovations that can specifically highlight text as it is read aloud which helps the student
concentrate (Svensson et al., 2021). Some reading assessments can be dense and boring to the
degree that students grow lethargic trying to process what they are reading. Even some
students who use text-to-speech may zone out due to the concurrent disorder of ADHD.
Highlighting information makes them focus on necessary information within the story to ensure
they are analyzing the details in the context correctly. AT improves independence. Having a
learning disability can lead one to be heavily dependent on a teacher or caregiver to help them
understand the material. “Normal” learners are not distracted by impairments so they can
process information at a faster rate to help others who do not have the ability. In turn, they
must rely on that person to help them often. AT removes that dependency so the individual can
learn at their own pace (Beyer & Perry, 2013). AT utilizes customization which helps the
individual increase their autonomy. For example, through AT a student can alter the settings of
the device to match their preferences of font, color, contrast, sound, and more (Jain & Argall,
2016).
The purpose of reviewing the role of AT is to explore existing research comparing the
performance of students with disabilities using AT versus those who do not. There is substantial
evidence that discusses the benefits of AT. However, are those benefits effective in making a
difference when comparing those who use them and those who don’t? Considering the blatant
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 9
challenges associated with general reading assessment and the overview of learning disabilities,
the answer would be they are effective.
Conceptual Framework
Universal Design for Learning
Assistive technology is an extension of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL is a
framework that highlights a blueprint for designing a curriculum that meets the diverse needs of
all students (Capp, 2017). UDL is effective for learning as it is not based on a one-size-fits-all
approach. It maximizes flexibility through three principles: representation, engagement, and
action & expression (Balta et al., 2021). The framework fosters proactive learning designs to
minimize or completely eradicate barriers to learning. By removing the barriers, students and
teachers can maximize their learning outcomes.
The origin of UDL stems from brain science leveraged by digital technology. It intends to
maximize multiple means of representation. Moreover, using the basis of its origin, it challenges
innovators to develop digital technology that will cater to all learning styles. Moreover, it
encourages developers to create tools designed for visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and other
impairments (Chen & Dote-Kwan, 2021). With the diverse means of representation, students
have multiple means of engagement. Specifically, students can connect with materials in ways
that are meaningful and motivating. Students are equipped with a sense of autonomy as they
can engage with material through choice and personalization. Means of action and expression
allow students to demonstrate their knowledge and comprehension through the tools they are
using.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 10
Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
Another framework that encompasses AT is Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD). According to research, ZPD is more of an analysis guide that measures what a learner can
do autonomously and what they can achieve with assistance from a capable peer (Lasmawan &
Budiarta, 2020). In the context of this framework, a capable peer can be AT. One of the key
concepts of ZPD is scaffolding which is a more knowledgeable other (MKO) that helps the
student progress in their learning environment (Paul, 2023). Another key concept is social
interaction. Vygotsky emphasized social interaction as a necessity in the learning process as the
learner must have an independent assessor to analyze their progress (Topçiu & Myftiu, 2015).
The assessor in this case is responsible for collecting and reporting data that can signify if the
individual made progress with the tools and resources or not.
Impact of Assistive Technology on Academic Performance
Undoubtedly, the use of AT is beneficial for many students and there is ample research
that confirms this fact. But to some degree, there are some limitations. According to a
metaanalysis by Perlmutter et al., (2017) AT like Word processing, multimedia, and hypertext
are among the strongest tools for learning. The authors reviewed 38 quantitative and single-
subject experimental studies, 5 surveys, and 13 qualitative studies, including participants aged
14 and up. Overall, their analysis concluded AT showed holistic benefits in helping learners
engage with academic objectives. The review also revealed that individual preferences were
critical as the success of the AT was rooted in the learner’s comfort and attitude overall. Many of
the participants revealed mixed emotions. Some thought the use of AT was empowering,
whereas others felt it was stigmatizing. The authors found that feedback was necessary
regarding the learner’s use of the AT as it help tailor the learner's needs.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 11
In another study by Svensson et al., (2021), the study revealed the use of AT provided
transferable support in reading and writing skills. The authors selected 149 students with severe
reading disabilities and used the interventions of text-to-speech (TTS) and speech-to-text (STT).
The authors compared their learning skills to a control group that received traditional
educational support. There was no immediate significant difference post-intervention nor at the
one-year mark. However, the authors saw improvement in both TTS and STT ground over the
year mark compared to the control group. The AT group indicated significantly increased levels
of engagement towards school work. While the study highlighted a boost of engagement, the
authors recommended AT as a complement as opposed to a full replacement. Svensson et al.,
(2021) encouraged AT as a complement as both groups improved at similar rates. As in, the
success was not steep enough to justify the complete eradication of traditional learning
methods.
Moreover, a balanced approach works.
The following article by Thapliyal and Ahuja (2023) compiled a meta-synthesis of
instructional strategies in assistive technology (AT). The authors focused on five categories of AT:
non-electronic, low-tech, mid-tech, high-tech, and educational software. Each tool selected in
their review was based on the problem it intended to target, its underlying instructions, the
strategy to use the device, and its cognitive strength. The authors found a steep area of
opportunity with AT. Specifically, their results indicated a vast vacancy of high-tech apps and
software that could help students with reading, writing, and math disabilities (Thapliyal &
Ahuja, 2023). Alternatively, the review highlighted that many AT tools are largely designed to
attack specific problems rather than rendering aid to overall literacy or math development.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 12
Lastly, they also found that instructional strategies matter for AT. Moreover, the devices are
more effective when they are explicitly designed into the tools.
Limitations and Challenges of Assistive Technology
As mentioned in the studies, there are some limitations associated with AT. Aside from
the ones mentioned, there are technology gaps due to lack of funding, district size, or
socioeconomic status. Financial disparities play a significant role in funding as there is a heavy
reliance on local property taxes for school funding (McGuire & Papke, 2012). Statistically, there
is a vast difference in the resources available in wealthier districts compared to low-income
districts (Isenberg et al., 2022; Owens, 2018; Rubenstein, 2007). Unfortunately, many districts
are limited to being able to purchase AT for their schools. A leading reason is due to their district
size.
Many studies have indicated that rural areas have fewer AT options compared to
wealthier areas due to the geographical distances (Bernard et al., 2023; Fernández-Batanero et
al., 2022; Kormos & Wisdom, 2021). Districts are constantly manipulated to remove and add
areas that affect their ability to receive adequate contributions. Historically, this is referred to as
gerrymandering. Gerrymandering refers to the manipulation of districts that will impact their
funding (Sicilliano, 2024). Albeit explicitly outlawed, gerrymandering still occurs overtly. Every so
often, local officials orchestrate a change that results in districts changing. For example, in 2023
a federal three-judge plan found South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District guilty of
unconstitutional racial gerrymander as they moved 30,000 Black voters from Charleston to
reshape the favor towards Republicans (Pardo, 2025). However, in 2024, the Supreme Court
reversed the lower court’s decision arguing that partisan fairness was the motivation and not
racial bias (Pardo, 2025).
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 13
In 2023, a court ruled that Alabama had violated the gerrymander precedent by
unlawfully diluting the Black voting power, and mandated a new map including two
majorityBlack districts (Briscoe, 2024; Brown, 2023). However, the Alabama legislature ignored
the construction of a new map and upheld only one Black majority district. While the new
congressional map was enforced for the 2024 election, the state remains in court in 2025
contesting its operation. Given that blatant cases like these are still happening in 2025, funding
will likely continue to be affected, which in turn limits the availability of assistive technology for
students.
Conclusion and Further Study
Overall, students with learning disabilities face many extra challenges regarding reading
assessments. However, assistive technology makes a significant difference by helping them
focus, stay engaged, and feel more confident. Use of AT fosters more personalized learning and
can improve reading performance over time. However, access to AT is not equal. Some schools,
especially in low-income or rural areas, do not have the financial means or general local support
to provide these tools. Funding issues, like gerrymandering, continue to affect what students
receive.
Further research should focus on three areas. First, more studies should directly
compare the test scores and progress of students who use AT with those who do not, across
different grade levels and disabilities. Second, the studies should highlight and explore if
different types of AT (i.e., text-to-speech vs. interactive apps) are the best options for different
learning needs. Most importantly, more attention should be given to how school funding and
policy decisions affect access to these resources. Focusing on these three areas can lead to
better learning conditions for all students, particularly those with learning disabilities.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 14
Resources
Afflerbach, P. (2025). Understanding and using reading assessment, K-12. Guilford
Publications.
Ayon, V., & Dillon, A. (2021). Assistive technology in education. The International Journal of
Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 5(3), 174-184.
Balta, J. Y., Supple, B., & O'Keeffe, G. W. (2021). The universal design for learning framework in
anatomical sciences education. Anatomical sciences education, 14(1), 71-78.
Bartolomé, J., & Garaizar, P. (2022). Design and validation of a novel tool to assess citizens’
netiquette and information and data literacy using interactive simulations.
Sustainability, 14(6), 3392.
Bernard, J., Steinführer, A., Klärner, A., & Keim-Klärner, S. (2023). Regional opportunity
structures: A research agenda to link spatial and social inequalities in rural areas.
Progress in Human Geography, 47(1), 103-123.
Bernstein, S. K. (2014). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990-as amended: Remedying the
boundary that Congress overstepped. Geo. Mason UCRLJ, 25, 123.
Beyer, S., & Perry, J. (2013). Promoting independence through the use of assistive technology.
Tizard Learning Disability Review, 18(4), 179-185.
BRISCOE, J. (2024). RACIAL VOTER DILUTION: CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING
POST PRE-CLEARANCE. The Fellows, 329.
Brown, K. (2023). Do African Americans from Alabama Deserve a Second District? Examining
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 15
The Recent Battle Between Alabama and its African American Citizens Over Voter
Representation and The Future of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act. Examining The
Recent Battle Between Alabama and its African American Citizens Over Voter
Representation and The Future of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act.(December 16,
2023).
Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of
literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8),
791-807.
Chang, M. W., Chen, C. C., & Chin, J. M. C. (2025). Navigating the dilemmas of educational
reform: A case study of Montessori implementation in a Taiwanese public school. British
Educational Research Journal.
Chen, C. C., & Tsai, Y. H. (2025). Effect of interactive e-book use on learning engagement,
satisfaction and perceived learning. Education and Information Technologies, 1-33.
Chen, D., & Dote-Kwan, J. (2021). Preschoolers with visual impairments and additional
disabilities: Using universal design for learning and differentiation. Young exceptional
children, 24(2), 70-81.
Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M., & Shukla, M. (2018). Increasing student engagement through
virtual interactions: How?. Virtual Reality, 22(4), 353-369.
DeVries, B. A. (2023). Literacy assessment and intervention for classroom teachers. Routledge.
Ercan Doğu, S., & Gündoğmuş, A. G. (2025). “The more we dive into life, the more this illness
fades away and gets better”: A qualitative study on the competitive work experiences of
people with serious mental illness (SMI). WORK, 80(4), 1564-1576.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 16
Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., Fernández-Cerero, J., & García-Martínez, I.
(2022). Assistive technology for the inclusion of students with disabilities: a systematic
review. Educational technology research and development, 70(5), 1911-1930.
Francois, C., & Hood, M. (2021). Rethinking the role of reading assessments for real learning.
Journal for Multicultural Education, 15(3), 299-312.
Gonzalez, C. (2004). Learning to make decisions in dynamic environments: Effects of time
constraints and cognitive abilities. Human Factors, 46(3), 449-460.
Gostin, L. O. (2015). The Americans with Disabilities Act at 25: the highest expression of
American values. Jama, 313(22), 2231-2235.
Ianniello, A., & Corona, F. (2024). Improving inclusive education: Quality of life and
selfdetermination. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 11(2), 111-128.
Isenberg, E., Max, J., Gleason, P., & Deutsch, J. (2022). Do low-income students have equal
access to effective teachers?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(2), 234256.
Ismail, S. M., Rahul, D. R., Patra, I., & Rezvani, E. (2022). Formative vs. summative assessment:
impacts on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-
regulation skill. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 40.
Jain, S., & Argall, B. (2016, May). An approach for online user customization of shared autonomy
for intelligent assistive devices. In Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robot. and
Autom., Stockholm, Sweden.
Jungjohann, J., & Gebhardt, M. (2023). Dimensions of classroom-based assessments in inclusive
education: A teachers’ questionnaire for instructional decision-making, educational
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 17
assessments, identification of special educational needs, and progress monitoring.
International Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 131-144.
Kormos, E., & Wisdom, K. (2021). Rural schools and the digital divide: Technology in the learning
experience. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 11(1).
Kumar, A., Krishnamurthi, R., Bhatia, S., Kaushik, K., Ahuja, N. J., Nayyar, A., & Masud, M. (2021).
Blended learning tools and practices: A comprehensive analysis. Ieee Access, 9, 85151-
85197.
Kunwar, R., & Sapkota, H. P. (2022). An overview of dyslexia: Some key issues and its effects on
learning mathematics. Online Submission, 11(2), 82-98.
Lasmawan, I. W., & Budiarta, I. W. (2020). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and the
students’ progress in learning (A heutagogcal bibliographical review). JPI (Jurnal
Pendidikan Indonesia), 9(4), 545-552.
McGuire, T. J., & Papke, L. E. (2012). Local funding of schools: The property tax and its
alternatives. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 379-394).
Routledge.
Nafziger, J. (2023). School Counselors and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: An
Opportunity for Professional Self-Advocacy (Doctoral dissertation, University of Holy
Cross).
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 18
Owens, A. (2018). Income segregation between school districts and inequality in students’
achievement. Sociology of education, 91(1), 1-27.
Pardo, M. S. (2025). The Standard of Proof in Racial-Gerrymandering Cases: Alexander's
Mistake and its Implications. University of Illinois Law Review, 2026.
Paul, P. V. (2023). Perhaps This Is Everything You Wanted to Know About Vygotsky, but Were
Afraid to Ask. American Annals of the Deaf, 168(1), 7-11.
Peddie, J., & Guttage, K. (2023). Technology issues. In Augmented Reality: Where We Will All
Live (pp. 253-364). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Perelmutter, B., McGregor, K. K., & Gordon, K. R. (2017). Assistive technology interventions for
adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review
and meta-analysis. Computers & education, 114, 139-163.
Plaatjies, B. (2024). Views on Empowering Parents to Support their Children with Literacy Skills.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(6), 285-305.
Roos, A. L., Goetz, T., Voracek, M., Krannich, M., Bieg, M., Jarrell, A., & Pekrun, R. (2021). Test
anxiety and physiological arousal: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 33, 579-618.
Rubenstein, R., Schwartz, A. E., Stiefel, L., & Amor, H. B. H. (2007). From districts to schools: The
distribution of resources across schools in big city school districts. Economics of
Education Review, 26(5), 532-545.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 19
Schwartz, A. E., Hopkins, B. G., & Stiefel, L. (2021). The effects of special education on the
academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 40(2), 480-520.
Siciliano, M. (2024). A History of Gerrymandering: Effects, Issues, Solutions (Doctoral
dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University).
Spiel, C. F., Evans, S. W., & Langberg, J. M. (2014). Evaluating the content of Individualized
Education Programs and 504 Plans of young adolescents with attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 452.
Stella, M. (2022). Network psychometrics and cognitive network science open new ways for
understanding math anxiety as a complex system. Journal of Complex Networks, 10(3),
cnac012.
Svensson, I., Nordström, T., Lindeblad, E., Gustafson, S., Björn, M., Sand, C., ... & Nilsson, S.
(2021). Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities.
Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(2), 196-208.
Sylvia, A. M., Shear, P. K., Jastrowski Mano, K. E., Guerin, J. M., & Mano, Q. R. (2023). Test
anxiety and reading comprehension: The key role of fluid reasoning. Anxiety, Stress, &
Coping, 36(6), 781-794.
Thapliyal, M., & Ahuja, N. J. (2023). Underpinning implications of instructional strategies on
assistive technology for learning disability: a meta-synthesis review. Disability and
Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 18(4), 423-431.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 20
Topçiu, M., & Myftiu, J. (2015). Vygotsky theory on social interaction and its influence on the
development of pre-school children. European Journal of Social Science Education and
Research, 2(3), 103-110.
van Zyl, L. E., Gaffaney, J., van der Vaart, L., Dik, B. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2024). The critiques and
criticisms of positive psychology: A systematic review. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
19(2), 206-235.
Warden, D. (2023). The Rehabilitation Act at Fifty. Calif. L. Rev. Online, 14, 54.
William, B., & Quadry Taiwo, I. M. (2025). Empowering Readers: How Individualized
Programs Drive Literacy Growth.
Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). Does use of text-to-speech and
related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading
disabilities? A meta-analysis. Journal of learning disabilities, 51(1), 73-84.
