Twenty-Five Years Later: How is Technology Used in the Education of Students with Disabilities Cindy...

transcript

Twenty-Five Years Later: How is Technology Used in the

Education of Students with Disabilities

Cindy Okolo Michigan State University

okolo@msu.edu

Jeff DiedrichMichigan’s Integrated Technology Supports

jeff.diedrich@gmail.com

Assistive Technology & the IEP

AT devices and services must be considered

Document

Specify as components of the IEP

Research suggests process of AT consideration is imprecise and unpredictable

Accessible Instructional Materials

Data shows AT is underutilized (dating back to ‘90s)

Document

Purpose of the Study

➭To get a snapshot from a broader group of stakeholders

➭Ever-evolving Technology Options

Research Questions

KNOWLEDGE

What knowledge do educators have about the use of technology for students with different types of disabilities?

Research Questions

Impact

Decision-Making

Tech Use

Support

Knowledge

Barriers

SUPPORT

What are educators’ perceptions of the support they receive for using technology with students with disabilities?

Research Questions

Impact

Decision-Making

Tech Use

Support

Knowledge

Barriers

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

What are educators’ perceptions of the need for and interest further PD?

Research Questions

Impact

Decision-Making

Tech Use

Support

Knowledge

Barriers

TECH USE

In what ways do educators use technology to assist students with disabilities?

Research Questions

Impact

Decision-Making

Tech Use

Support

Knowledge

Barriers

DECISION-MAKING

How are decisions made about technology use for students with disabilities and who is involved in these decisions?

Research Questions

Impact

Decision-Making

Tech Use

Support

Knowledge

Barriers

IMPACT

What are educators’ beliefs about the impact that technology might have on students with disabilities?

Research Questions

Impact

Decision-Making

Tech Use

Support

Knowledge

Barriers

BARRIERS

What are educators’ beliefs about barriers to more widespread technology use, and what could be done to alleviate these barriers?

6Impact

Research Questions

Decision-Making

Tech Use

Support

Knowledge

7Barriers

Michigan Statistics

2.4 Million School Age Children

14% with an IEP

Slightly more diverse than National average

Lower per capita income than national average – 36th in child poverty rate

15 Demographic questions

23 Likert-Scale Items (strongly agree – strongly disagree)

2 Questions, checklists, decision-making for AT use

3 Open-ended questions

Instrument: 58-item Survey

“As you answer these questions, think of technology as including computers, communication devices, software, the Internet, and mobile devices (such as phones). Though beneficial to students with disabilities, this survey is not investigating the use of low-tech devices and strategies.”

Survey Definition of Assistive Tech

• Online survey tool, link sent:– Directly to listservs to which we had access– To primary contact of other lists– Participants asked to share with others

throughout the state

Survey Type & Distribution

Data Analysis

Descriptive data on relevant items➪ “other” recoded where possible

Related Service

Personnel

Multiple Roles

Special Ed. Teachers

Data Analysis

Tech Providers

Admin.

Gen. Ed. Teachers

Compared outcomes for interval level data among 6 categories of respondents

Data Analysis

Inductive categorization

for open-ended questions

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

1,143 Usable Surveys (95 eliminated)

Respondents

90% worked with at least one student with a disability; Most taught more than one category of disability

Respondents

73% had over 10 years experience74% had a masters degree or higher

Respondents

73% had over 10 years experience74% had a masters degree or higher

Average 1.8 professional credentials related to special ed/related service (e.g., endorsement, certificate, etc.)

Respondents

Administrators

Related Service Personnel

Special Education Teachers

Multiple Roles

Technology Providers

General Education Teachers

Respondents: Primary Professional Responsibility

Respondents: Type of Community

URBAN RURAL SUBURBAN

➪ 97% use every day

➪ 91% use at least weekly to find professional resources

Respondents: Use of Technology

➪ 47% used a lab or media center at least once a week

➪ 96% use tech at school at least weekly when not working with students

➪ 79% use technology at school at least weekly when working with students

Teachers estimate that students with disabilities are more likely to use technology on a daily basis, at school, than students without disabilities

Teachers estimate that students without disabilities are more likely to use technology on a daily basis, at home, than students with disabilities

However, about 50% choose “don’t know”

Estimates of Students’ Technology Use

Access Instructional Materials in Non-Print

Format

≥ WEEKLY

< WEEKLY

≥ DAILY28%

SWD Use of Technology in School

Improve Literacy Skills

≥ WEEKLY

< WEEKLY

≥ DAILY28%

Improve Communication

Skills

≥ WEEKLY

< WEEKLY

≥ DAILY30%

Improve Math Skills

≥ WEEKLY

< WEEKLY

≥ DAILY20%

Reward for Good

Behavior

≥ WEEKLY

< WEEKLY

≥ DAILY26%

Self-Reported Knowledge: I Know How To Use Technology….

In my personal life M = 4.8; SD = .8

To make print materials accessible M = 3.8; SD = .9

To facilitate learning M = 3.7; SD = .9

Learning Disabilities

To assist students with:

M = 3.5; SD = 1.0

Literacy Problems M = 3.4; SD = 1.0

Cognitive Impairments M = 3.3; SD = 1.1

Communication M = 3.4; SD = 1.0

At Risk for Learning/Behavior

Problems

M = 3.3; SD = 1.0

Physical Impairments M = 3.0; SD = 1.1

Hearing Impairments M = 2.9; SD = 1.1

Visual Impairments M = 2.8; SD = 1.1

English Language Learners

M = 2.7; SD = 1.0

Total Knowledge Score

39.744.5

Spec EdGen EdRelated ServiceTech ProviderAdmin Multiple

Know where to go M = 3.8; SD = 1.0

Can access software and apps M = 3.6; SD = 1.0

Efficiently install M = 3.3; SD = 1.2

School knowledge of technology M = 2.9; SD = 1.2

Support for Technology Use for Students with Disabilities

School leadership M = 3.1; SD = 1.2

Adequate preparation M = 3.0; SD = 1.1

Students get needed technology M = 2.8; SD = 1.1

Support for Technology Use for Students with Disabilities

19.822.1

25.422.8

Spec EdGen EdRelated ServiceTech ProviderAdmin Multiple

Total Support Score

I would like to know more M = 4.3; SD = 4.8

I would like to attend PD sessions M = 4.2; SD = .8

I would like to use online modules/webinars M = 4.0; SD = .9

Professional Development

12.8Spec EdGen EdRelated ServiceTech ProviderAdmin Multiple

Total PD Score

Who participates in decisions about technology use?

Special Education Teachers

Related Service Personnel

Administrators

75% 57% 56%

General Education Teachers

Parents AT Specialists

40% 40% 35%

StudentsTechnology

Coordinators

31% 31%

Don’t Know OtherVocational

RehabilitationCounselor

10% 7% 3%

Top 3 Factors in determining how a student with a disability will use technology:

53% Nature or Severity of the disability

42% Availability of Technology

41% Recommendations of the multi-disciplinary team

Other factors identified in determining how a student with a disability will use

technology:

Expectations for students’ academic performance – 23%

Results of AT Assessment – 23%

Cost – 20%

Recommendations of AT Specialist – 17%

Students’ age or grade – 17%

Requests or preferences of a parent/guardian – 16%

Students’ achievement in school– 14%

Don’t know– 9%

Students’ behavior at school – 8%

Students’ request of preference –8%

Transition to post-school settings –3%

Other – 2%

Improve access to curriculum (67%)

Improve academic outcomes (63%)

Improve instruction (60%)

Top 3 ways technology could be used to have an impact on the learning and success of students

with disabilities?

Staff knowledge (69%)

Access to adequate technology (61%)

Funding (60%)

What are the three biggest barriers to using technology to improve the education of students

with disabilities?

3 biggest actions that could be taken to improve technology use for students with disabilities?

Improve staff knowledge & skills (71%)

Funding (62%)

Better access to technology (57%)

Limitations of the study

Compared to national data➪ Higher poverty rate➪ Lower per capita income➪ More diverse population

More veteran teachers than national data

Can’t ascertain representativeness of sample or response rate

Self-reported knowledge and skills

Only 1 state

High rates of DK on some questions

Explicit definition of AT means responses didn’t address low tech or AT services

What was learned: 25 Years Later…

➪ Positive attitudes about potential of AT, particularly for teaching & learning➥Even in face of perceived lack of

support➪ Strong self-reported

knowledge of AIM, use for high-incidence disabilities

➪ Strong desire for further PD➪ Lack of leadership not

perceived as a substantial issue

AT Remains at the Periphery

➭Knowledge and support lower among those who work most frequently with students

➭Respondents don’t know much about students’ in school use of tech, either

➭Educators feel underprepared➭However special educators most

frequent decision-makersAT

AT Remains at the Periphery

➭Low student and parental involvement in decisions

➭Respondents don’t know much about tech use out of school

➭AIM critical, but less than daily use for most students

➭Many superficial ideas about tech use➭If they had it, would they know

what to do with it?AT

Implications: PD

Efforts to expand AT in university coursework seem to be improving*

However, constraints on teacher ed can be severe

Implications: PD

➭Need more distributed model of expertise➭More school-based

training and coaching

➭AT integrated into ongoing reform efforts (e.g., RTI) and not a separate PD topic

Implications: Family & Student Involvement

Rarely included in decisions

Not as dependent on school-based

Improved use & outcomes

inside & outside of

school

Can become knowledgeable

users and advocates

Put pressure on schools

Advocate for self throughout

life-span

inside & outside of

school

users and advocates

life-span

users and advocates

life-span

inside & outside of

school

Implications: Research

Research base is

limited and scattered

Implications: Research

Research decreasing as AT become

more powerful and available

Thoughts…

Cindy Okolo Michigan State University

okolo@msu.edu

Jeff DiedrichMichigan’s Integrated Technology Supports

mits.cenmi.org jeff.diedrich@gmail.com

Thank you

Twenty-Five Years Later: How is Technology Used in the Education of Students with Disabilities Cindy...

Documents