1 PROJECT DELIVERABLE Grant Agreement number: 224216 Project acronym: HANDS Project title: Helping Autism-diagnosed teenagers Navigate and Develop Socially Funding Scheme: Collaborative Project Deliverable description Deliverable no: D8.4 Deliverable name: Report on collaboration project with UK schools for autism Work Package No: 8 Lead beneficiary: London South Bank University Authors: Corinne Branch, Joseph Mintz, Caty March, Steve Lerman Nature: Report Dissemination level: Public Document number: HANDS_D.8.4_WIDK_R_PU_22.06.2011 Summary: This document presents data and findings from the exploratory evaluation of the applicability of the HANDS Software in three mainstream school settings. Project co-ordinator name, title and organisation: Project Co-ordinator: Professor Peter Øhrstrøm Organisation: Aalborg University Tel: +45 9940 9015 Fax: +45 9815 9434 E-mail: [email protected]Project website address: http://www.hands.hum.aau.dk
Transcript
1
PROJECT DELIVERABLE Grant Agreement number:
224216 Project acronym:
HANDS Project title: Helping Autism-diagnosed teenagers Navigate and Develop Socially
Funding Scheme:
Collaborative Project
Deliverable description
Deliverable no: D8.4
Deliverable name:
Report on collaboration project with UK schools for autism
Work Package No:
8
Lead beneficiary:
London South Bank University
Authors:
Corinne Branch, Joseph Mintz, Caty March, Steve Lerman
Nature:
Report
Dissemination level:
Public
Document number: HANDS_D.8.4_WIDK_R_PU_22.06.2011
Summary:
This document presents data and findings from the exploratory
evaluation of the applicability of the HANDS Software in three
mainstream school settings.
Project co-ordinator name, title and organisation: Project Co-ordinator: Professor Peter Øhrstrøm
2005). There are currently around two million children in the UK who have special
educational needs (UK Department for Education(DfE), 2010) and the question of
how and where students should be educated is of wider importance.
The precise meaning of inclusion has been widely debated in the literature. The term
is typically used to advocate practice within schools that works to promote the
presence, participation, acceptance and achievement of all students including
students with special educational needs (Humphrey & Lewis, 2008). It can also be
used synonymously with ‚mainstreaming‛; that is policy moves to educate more
children in mainstream schools as opposed to in special school settings. In the UK,
both aspects of inclusion were formalised into educational practice with the SEN
Code of Practice (DfE, 1994 & DfES, 2001a) which currently states that all children
have the right to access a broad and balanced curriculum and the expectation is that
for most children this will be in mainstream schools. Schools in the UK are required
by law to make ‚reasonable‛ adjustments to provide appropriate and good quality
experiences for all students (Disability Discrimination Act, 1995).
Similar policy moves have occurred amongst other countries in Europe and North
America. The UN Statement on Special Needs Education (1994) made a global call on
governments to adopt inclusive practices. Within the USA, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 1997 called for all mainstream schools to provide
children with SEN with quality education and outcomes. Currently, more than half
of children with SEN in the US are educated in mainstream schools. Across Europe,
70% of children with SEN are educated in mainstream schools, however, policy and
practice can vary across member states (Meijer, 2003; Watkins, 2008; Muskens, 2009).
A report published by the European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education (Meijer, 2003) evaluated the situation of special education. This showed
that policy and provision across Europe remains variable. For example, in Denmark
all students are entitled to an education which is adapted to meet their needs in
mainstream education. In 2001 the government launched the KVIS programme
which aimed at increasing inclusion. In contrast, Germany has a history of
segregated education, with a culture of advocating special schools for students with
7
SEN needs are met. The European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education (Watkins, 2008) provides country data on the educational placement of
students with SEN. In Denmark around 80% of children with SEN are included in
mainstream classes or SEN classes in a mainstream provision. In contrast in
Germany over 80% of children with SEN are in segregated schools. In Hungary 50%
of students with SEN educated in mainstream countries and in Sweden nearly 100%
of students are taught in mainstream classes or SEN classes in a mainstream
provision.
Senior teachers and psychologists working at the HANDS test school sites from
Sweden (Svedenskolan), Hungary (Autism Foundation) and Denmark (Egebakken)
were questioned about country-wide policy and practices for inclusion. This was
supplemented with the existing knowledge at London South Bank University about
the policies within the UK. This has provided the HANDS project with first-hand
accounts of inclusion from the perspective of practitioners across four EU member
states. At Autism Foundation, school staff commented that whilst inclusion exists in
Hungary, in reality they felt that provisions made by mainstream schools for
students with ASD were not good and that the process is more like integration than
inclusion. Integration is typically defined as being at a lower value level than
inclusion, in that it focuses on undertaking necessary adaptations to ‚tolerate‛
children with special educational needs in mainstream settings, but its lack of
significant regard for the needs of the individual limits the extent to which they truly
feel accepted and valued within an institution (Ainscow, 2005). At Svedenskolan,
staff explained that the main policy direction is that students should be taught in
mainstream schools. However, we did find that children in mainstream schools are
often placed within SEN classes and groupings. The attitude of teachers at the school
in Denmark was similar, in that there is large support for inclusion by the
government that children should be educated in mainstream schools, but that the
best support is not always provided. A teacher at Egebakken explained that they
experience a large amount of students enrolling in their school who have already
had two or three failed placements in mainstream schools. Such accounts
demonstrate the importance of gaining first hand data which reveal a more detailed
picture of inclusion.
Policy direction has important repercussions for students with ASD. For students
with ASD in the UK, research shows that just over half are educated in mainstream
settings, the remaining being educated in special classes in mainstream schools and
special education settings (Barnard, Broach, Potter & Prior, 2002). The number of
students with ASD in mainstream settings is increasing. Explanations include higher
levels of diagnosis as awareness of the disorder has increased and an increased
movement towards inclusion (Chamberlain, Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller, 2007).
8
1.2.2 Achieving Inclusion
Academics have argued that inclusion for students with ASD is difficult for schools
to provide (Jordan, 2008; Batten et al, 2006). In the UK, one in five students with ASD
are excluded from school at some point, often on more than one occasion (Batten et
al, 2006). This is 20 times that experienced by students who do not have a SEN.
Social and economic exclusion extends into a person with ASD’s adult life where
51% of adults with ASD have spent time with neither a job nor access to benefits and
only 15% of adults in the UK are in full-time employment (Redman et al, 2009).
Outside of the support provided by education provision, individuals often face a life
of dependency upon others and difficulties in establishing long-term relationships
(Haskins & Silva, 2006).
High levels of exclusion for children with ASD from educational settings may be
caused by a number of factors. Jordan (2008) argues that frequently teachers of
children with ASD in mainstream classes do not appropriately meet the needs of
students (see also Batten et al, 2006). This may be as a result of lack of support or
training for teachers (Barnard, Prior & Potter, 2000). A report by the European
Agency on inclusive practices in secondary schools (Meijer, 2005) found that, across
the EU, the attitudes of school staff towards students with SEN is decisive in
achieving inclusive education and that teachers’ attitudes are formed by a number of
influences including workload, support from management, and previous experience
of SEN.
Furthermore, bullying is a major problem for children with autism who may be left
out of group activities or marginalised at break times, as a result of difficulties with
language, understanding social behaviour and obsessive interests (triad of
impairments; see Wing & Gould, 1979). Many of them show behaviours which can
be perceived as strange or bizarre by their peers. Batten et al (2006) found that over
40% of children with ASD have been bullied at school. A growth in students with
ASD in mainstream schools, coupled with a requirement on schools to make
reasonable adjustments has meant that schools must find means for supporting
students in this learning environment. In particular, mechanisms to promote student
autonomy, independence and social inclusion are important. Developing abilities in
social and life skills that may be impaired in young people with ASD is an important
way of achieving this. Mobile technology such as HANDS could be a useful tool to
facilitate the inclusion of young people with ASD in mainstream schools.
9
1.2.3 Mobile technology trends
Our review of the recent literature on mobile technology designed to support
students with ASD in a mainstream environment produced a small set of results.
Five major University library journal databases, including Education Research
Complete and PsychARTICLES were searched for reviewing the literature. A
combination of search terms for the title and abstract was used across the databases
and fifteen articles were recorded. Researchers believe that the limited amount of
journal articles found could be a result of the field of mobile technology for the
inclusion of students with ASD in mainstream being in its infancy.
Widening the search criteria of the literature review to extend our focus from ASD to
other marginalised groups has demonstrated that there has been an increased
interest in the general use of mobile technology to promote the inclusion of socially
marginalised young people (Lockyer, Johnson & Dyer, 2009). The ComeIn project is
an example of such projects and investigates the use of mobile networked
infrastructures to support the communication of users at risk of marginalisation
(Unterfrauner & Marschalek, 2009). More specifically of interest to the HANDS
project, a greater number of cognitive support tools are being created on
Smartphones, Iphones and PDAs to support students with ASD. We undertook a
review of current applications available on the market, which is summarised in
Table 1.
Table 1: Iphone and Android Mobile Apps for ASD
iPhone Android
APP NAME FUNCTIONALITY APP NAME FUNCTIONALITY
Stories2Learn
Geographical/organisational aid: Geographical in nature ~ Allows one to create personalised social stories using photos, text and audio messages to support excursions and transitions.
Turn Taker
Enabling the user to learn how to „take turns‟ and improve/consolidate social relationships
Picture
Scheduler
A development of an existing application ~ Audio Notes ~ an organisational tool: Provides picture, video and audio note functions.
LearnFruit
Using 20 pieces of fruit using an errorless approach to presenting receptive language identification trials
iConverse
Comes with six built-in tiles representing a person‟s „basic needs‟ ~ more tiles can be created (Picture Exchange Communication System -PECS-based)
Voice4u
A PECS-based tool: Seen by many as a very portable replacement to a less convenient PECS „hard‟ system/device/tool
AutismExpress
Picture tiles describing emotions: Helping autistic individuals to recognise and express their emotions
Flash Card
Maker Pro
A memory-building app: A multi-sensory teaching tool with memory-building functionality
Proloquo2Go A cheaper alternative to an
10
expensive Augmented Communication device providing text-to-speech voices, up-to-date symbols etc: recommended for children with autism AND developmental disabilities
First Then Visual
Schedule
This application allows the user to create visual schedules that provide positive behaviour support through the use of images that show daily events
There has been a significant, although disparate and uncoordinated, growth in the
development of mobile apps for Smartphones (of which HANDS is one example),
aimed at supporting language, communication, and daily living skills for people
with ASD. Our review of the market indicates that these can be potentially effective,
yet it is often unclear whether they are properly supported by an appropriate
academic/clinical or pedagogic knowledge base. Furthermore, these applications
have not been systematically tested in mainstream classrooms, and sometimes may
not have been tested in an educational setting at all. The HANDS mobile tool, which
has now been thoroughly evaluated with a significant population of young people
with ASD clearly has an advantage in this respect. Due to this, it is important to give
clear consideration to its potential application in mainstream settings. However, in
order to do justice to this it is important to consider the implications arising from the
ongoing experience with general mobile technology use in schools. This will
properly allow mobile technology such as HANDS to be set in the relevant context
when considering its potential application in mainstream settings.
1.2.4 Mobile Phone Use in Schools: General developments
A wider review of media coverage of mobile phone use in mainstream schools has
highlighted an ongoing debate within the UK regarding mobile phone use in schools
and whether they should be banned from school or if they should be encouraged as
innovative educational tools (Dodson, 2010; Lightfoot, 2009; Thorne, 2011). The UK
government has recently passed a bill giving increased powers to schools to ban
mobile phones from September 2011, to seize students personal mobile phones and
to search mobile phones for inappropriate material. In the EU, the Council of Europe
Committee Report (Huss, 2011) has recently advised that governments across
Europe should consider banning mobile phones and wifi in schools because they
could potentially, be detrimental to health (caution should be taken in interpreting
this research as the conclusions are highly equivocal). At the same time, as we will
demonstrate below, others argue that mobile phones offer powerful learning and
teaching experiences and that schools should tackle issues around misuse.
11
It can also be argued that it is important that educational settings keep up with
advances in technology outside of schools. Most young people are competent and
confident with using mobile phones. The Mobile Life Youth Report (Carphone
Warehouse & London School of Economics, 2006) found that 91% of 12 year olds in
the UK have a mobile phone. A BECTA review reported that GPS technology and
the massive growth in the mobile phone application market have increased the
potential of mobile phones in mainstream schools (BECTA are a UK wide
educational technology agency) (Becta, 2009b).
A growing number of research projects across UK mainstream schools have studied
the use of mobile technology as a learning tool. By far the largest scheme has been
the Mobile Learning Network (Molenet), which has funded 104 projects across 37
schools in the UK. One such project, Learning2go, has been the largest collaborative
mobile learning project in the UK, rolling out over 1500 portable devices across 18
schools (Learning2Goa, 2009). Findings of the project reported very few instances of
misuse (Lightfoot, 2009) as students identified with the phones and took good care
of them. The nQuire project 2011 used mobile phones to assist students in
conducting science experiments outside of the classroom. The project found that the
device was particularly useful for experiments outside school, on school trips, and at
home. It was also noted that students found the project engaging and exciting
(Mulholland, Collins & Gaved, 2010).
A third research project studied 331 students mobile phone use at five secondary
schools across the UK (Hartnell-Young & Heym, 2008). Students were allowed to
either use their personal mobiles or provided with Smartphones which they could
use for educational tasks, such as setting homework reminders, using the calculator
and stopwatch and for connecting to the internet and school email system. By the
end of the project students were motivated by their experience, had gained
confidence over the project and teachers were enthusiastic (Utton, 2008).
Recently there has been increasing demand direct from schools to adopt and test
innovative technologies in the classroom. In the UK, Cedar School issued an iPad to
every student at the school (Learner, 2011). At Oakdale Primary school students use
the Nintendo DS in the class (Dodson, 2010).
Within the EU there has also been a strong focus on testing mobile phones in
learning institutions. The European M-Learning Project 2005 was conducted across
UK, Italy and Sweden in colleges and further education. Students used their mobile
phones to support maths and literacy. They found that mobile devices attracted
young people to learning, helped to maintain their interest and could help support
learning, in particular in mathematics (Attewell, 2005). Projects have also been run
within schools, including the learning on foot project in the Netherlands
12
(www.lopendleren.nl) and the Learnosity project in Ireland
(http://www.learnosity.com/).
1.2.5 Issues with mobile technology in mainstream education
There has been a division between educationalists who are progressive and those
who are conservative in regards to mobile technology in the classroom. Hartnell-
Young & Heym’s BECTA project (2008), found that the use of mobile phones was
increasing steadily within schools, but also noted that it has not been as rapid as
devices such as computers and laptops.
The main issues associated with implementing mobile technology for learning in
mainstream schools include (Hartnell-Young & Heym, 2008):
A. School policies and abuse of technology
B. Technical and support issues
C. Teacher and student technical expertise
D. Inclusion and Accessibility
School policies on ICT use and abuse of the technology
A majority of schools in the UK ban mobile phone use inside schools grounds. This
generally reflects the thinking in the British media and from teachers that mobile
phones are disruptive, distracting (Williams, 2010; Barrett, 2011) and a risk to
students and teachers. This whole school policy drive tends to neglect the body of
research which reports that mobile technology could potentially enhance the
learning experience of both students with and without SEN (see for example; Farr,
reported that, whilst it is important that schools maintain a duty of care for students,
this must be balanced against the usability of the device (Learning2Go, 2009b). In
particular, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that users’ emotional
attachment to mobile devices is a significant factor in mediating the effectiveness of
specific behavioural interventions delivered via a mobile application. The results
from the main HANDS project (D3.5.1), as well as work by Fogg (Fogg, 2003; Fogg &
Eckles, 2007), all indicate that the use of other phone functions such as SMS and the
internet all lead users to develop an ongoing positive relationship with their mobile
device. More intensive use of other phone functions may lead to a more positive
disposition to the persuasive messages of interventions delivered by applications
such as HANDS. This phenomenon is referred to in the persuasive technology
literature as mobile ‚marriage‛ (Fogg & Eckles 2007). Hartnell-Young and Heym
(2008) reported that by allowing mobile phones to be used in the classroom, schools
could potentially create more open dialogue about their appropriate use. See also
our evaluation of potential mobile marriage effects in some children within HANDS
in Deliverables D3.4.1 and D3.5.1.
Mobile phone use, cyber bullying and digital safety
Cyber bullying is a growing phenomenon in schools and one that is of increasing
concern for the inclusion of students with special educational needs. The National
Centre for Social Research in 2009 studied 15,000 children in English schools. The
research findings identified that cyber-bullying was one of the most prevalent forms
of abuse. They place a responsibility on schools to develop policies and practices to
minimize such behaviour (Cyberbullying: Supporting School Staff, DSCF 2009).
Furthermore, teachers and students should be educated on how to manage
information and where to seek support. It is also worth noting that although we did
not locate any direct evidence of this in our review of the literature, impairments in
social communication in young people with ASD and associated social naivete
suggest that this group are likely to be even more at risk.
Technical and support issues
Mobile learning can present schools with specific technical challenges. Usability
issues, including short battery life and small screen size, can cause a substantial
barrier to implementing technology (Kukulska-Hulme, 2007; Sharples et al, 2005). At
one school in the BECTA study (Hartnell-Young & Heym, 2008), students had
initially been very motivated to use their mobile phones, however after the initial 6
week period this support subsided in part attributed to short battery life of the
phone. Kukulska-Hulme (2007) reports that the usability of devices in the classroom
adds a new dimension to mobile technology development, which she named
‚pedagogical usability‛. They note that with technical advances in battery life, larger
memory and improved capabilities the usability of mobile technology is gradually
increasing. Furthermore, mainstream secondary schools are usually of sufficient size
to have up to date technology. The three mainstream schools that we worked with in
14
this sub-project reported that there was good technical support on site. This support
can be instrumental in successfully setting up phones onto the schools networks,
dealing with connectivity issues and communicating with network providers
(Hartnell-Young & Heym, 2008).
Teacher and student technical expertise
Levels of staff expertise and professional development have also been noted as
important issues for successful ICT use. Hartnell-Young & Heym (2008) note that
professional development is necessary to train staff in using devices and also to
address negative attitudes to demonstrate to teachers how phones can be used in a
positive way in their class to support students learning. However, most teachers and
students are confident with using mobile phones. ICT is now very much part of
school delivery, many mainstream schools have ICT support from staff members
and there is a high expectation that staff will be increasingly computer literate across
the EU.
A report from project K-Nect in the US demonstrates the positive knock-on effect
that implementing a new ICT tool can have on teachers’ knowledge and ability to
use ICT in their teaching. Teachers involved in the mobile learning initiative noted
that they were using web-based tools more, and transferring their new ICT skills to
other devices (Project Tomorrow, 2010).
Inclusion
The role of technology in the inclusion of students with special educational needs in
mainstream schools is an important element to consider. Hutinger (1996) wrote that
technology can be an effective way of ‘mainstreaming’ students with disabilities, and
that it can support independence, self-esteem and social development, particularly if
the student uses the same tools as other students in the class to complete a task. It is
possible that, when students with an SEN use the same technology as other students
(i.e. everyone uses the same technology) the stigma associated with special
education technology is lessened (Grant, 2008). For example, in a study by Lewis,
Trushell and Woods (2005) in which they implemented a course of PC based
collaborative sessions for a student with ASD in a mainstream school, they found
that the students social profile amongst his classmates had been raised. In contrast,
in the study by Hartnell-Young and Heym (2008), two 14/15 year old students used
mobile phone devices for classroom learning when the rest of the class did not
receive the devices. It is interesting to note that the students ‚felt intimidated during
lessons, as their use would single them out‛ (Hartnell-Young & Heym, 2008, p.19)
and that they had to be prompted to use the devices.
Independently of the research literature, it is likely that teachers in mainstream
schools may be concerned that issuing a student with ASD a mobile phone to
support them (whilst the other children do not have one) may be further identifying
their difference from other children. Although teachers may be open, as the
15
literature suggests, to implementing technology so that all children use it, not just
those with ASD, financial and logistical constraints will often make this unrealistic.
Nevertheless, concerns about labelling and identification need to be balanced against
the fact that a mobile phone with applications such as HANDS may enable them to
become more independent.
Accessibility
Accessibility is an important aspect for software designers to think about when
designing a tool for use in an educational setting and for schools to think about
when procuring technology (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005) and includes issues
such as size and portability, graphical user interface, and touch screens. Kukulska-
Hulme and Traxler suggest that widening accessibility to educational ICT tools
means that they should be usable for all students in the classroom, irrespective of
varied cognitive, behavioural and psychological abilities. Two methods to do this
could be in designing a device which is a) flexible in its set-up and b) easy to
personalise to individual students needs (Kukulska-Hulme & Taxler, 2005).
1.2.6. Student voice and autonomy
Educational approaches based on promoting inclusion imply attaching importance
to the views of young people with special educational needs. This is because an
inclusive position is based on valuing the inherent worth of each individual and
providing services which meet their needs and allow them to develop as
autonomous individuals. If it is their needs and their autonomy which is to be
developed, then this implies that the person themselves is logically a primary source
for identifying what their needs and goals are. Inclusion for students with ASD in
mainstream schools implies, therefore, that the needs of children can, in many cases,
be best expressed by the children themselves. It also suggests that the school has a
duty to support children with SEN in doing so and to listen to their choices. In the
main HANDS project (see D3.1.1; D3.4.1) we have considered how the HANDS tool
can be used to support students’ independence and autonomy in a special education
setting. The aim has been to create a support tool which can support the students in
developing certain life and social skills so that the student can achieve these
independent from adult support. We have also identified in project deliverable
D3.5.1 that a key part of students being able to learn such skills is that the student
contributes to the development of interventions developed for them using the
HANDS toolkit, and concomitantly that they are motivated to achieving the
particular behavioural goal specified in the intervention. The issue of student
independence and autonomy is therefore intertwined with students having the
chance to express their objectives in relation to interventions delivered via the
HANDS tool and that these views are listened to by their intermediaries (teachers in
16
this case). However, there is also a conflict between recognising that the student’s
voice is important when implementing interventions on the HANDS tool and
recognising that children with ASD can have significant impairments in
communication, cognition and social understanding which potentially prevents
them from expressing their ideas and agency directly. In order to enhance students’
ability to communicate their ideas and agency, supports can be put in place and
alternative methods of communication are increasingly being used. In the main
HANDS project we implemented visual communication cards in order to support
those students in interviews who felt that they required them. Whilst not all children
chose to use the picture cards they were offered to students so they could make a
choice. It has also been the case that throughout the HANDS project our thinking
about student voice has formed an explicit part of our methodology. Accordingly,
we have interviewed students three times over the course of main HANDS project to
take into account their experience of the HANDS tool. Further, this approach has
also been adopted in the mainstream schools sub-project, where we have elicited the
views of children as well as teachers.
2.0: Methods 2.1 Overview of the research procedure
The objectives of the sub-project were to:
1. Explore how HANDS could be utilized in the UK mainstream schooling system
2. Identify potential training and implementation requirements
3. Identify potential barriers and opportunities at mainstream schools,
4. Identify any major potential implementation differences between mainstream
schools and special schools.
At three mainstream school test sites within the UK, participants attended a
‘familiarization’ session about the HANDS tool. This included presenting
information on the HANDS tool, the back-end server, and the project objectives. This
was followed by a semi-structured focus group session. A focus group protocol was
devised around the objectives. At each school, separate child and adult focus groups
sessions were conducted. An audio recording was made of the focus group which
was then transcribed. A thematic analysis of the data set was undertaken.
The use of focus groups with children with special educational needs offers
advantages including a) a more supportive and less threatening environment for
children with low literacy skills, b) more in depth data than written questionnaires
as they allow facilitators to ask probing questions, as recommended by a wide
17
ranging report on research methods with young people by the PreTeen Alliance
(2007). In the same report, recommendations are made as follows: a) focus group size
should be kept below six, b) focus group length should be shorter than with adults –
30 minutes or so, c) questions must be modified to match the children’s cognitive
abilities, d) visual representations can be effective in stimulating children’s
responses. All these recommendations were acted upon in the child focus groups
used here.
Further, there are a small number of reports in the literature on the successful use of
focus groups with young people with ASD, including Piper et al. (2006) who report
on the use of focus groups in the evaluation of a collaborative tabletop computer
game for developing social skills.
2.1.1 Participants
Three schools were recruited to participate in the project. Schools were selected on
the basis of the following criteria:
1. The school must be a UK based mainstream comprehensive secondary school.
2. The school must include students who have been diagnosed with Autism.
3. Teachers within the school must have experience of teaching children with Autism
within their classrooms.
Schools were asked to select participants for both the child group and the adult focus
groups. At each, 3 to 4 students and 3 to 6 adults were selected, although due to
illness and timetabling issues some participants dropped out. Schools were given
selection criteria which participants must meet:
Adult focus group:
1. The adult must have an interest in working with students on the Autistic
Spectrum in their school. This includes Teachers, Teaching Assistants (TAs), Special
Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs), other staff working with children with
ASD. It can also include parents of children with ASD.
2. They must have an interest in implementing technology at the school.
Child focus group:
1. The child must have a diagnosis of high-functioning Autism or Asperger’s
Syndrome.
2. Due to the requirements of participation in a focus group environment, the child
must have an appropriate level of social communication and verbal language skills.
18
3. The child must be between 12 and 18 years of age.
In total, 12 adults and 8 children participated across the three schools. All
participants complied with the inclusion criteria. Adult roles ranged from SENCO,
teaching assistant and parent.
The methods used were approved by the HANDS Ethical Board and by the LSBU
Ethics Committee. Signed consent forms were completed by each participant (and in
the case of children, parental consent forms were also completed).
2.1.2 The ‘familiarization’ session
A familiarization session was designed to introduce all participants to the HANDS
tool so that they could evaluate it in an informed manner at the focus groups.
The ‘familiarization’ session took place at least one week before the focus group.
Each session was presented by a researcher from the HANDS project team and
lasted from 45 minutes to 1 hour. At the request of schools, children and adults were
in separate familiarization sessions and this allowed researchers to differentiate the
presentation and activities. In both groups the participants were presented with the
HANDS tool and informed of the rationale for using the tool in and outside the
classroom. All participants were given the opportunity to try the HANDS tool (see
Figure 1).
Adult familiarization session:
The LSBU researcher began by giving a presentation introducing HANDS.
Presentations were conducted in school classrooms. The presentation included:
1. Background information on the project,
2. Technical information,
3. How to use each functionality on the HANDS tool,
4. How the functions could be used to support children with ASD,
5. Wider implications of the involvement of teacher and school the HANDS tool.
19
Figure 1: The HANDS tool – application screens
1.1 Home screen which application options
1.2 Personal trainer selection
1.3 Appointment screen
20
1.3 Minutewatch timer screen.
Phones were preloaded with diary appointments and personal trainer interventions
demonstrating how to make an origami frog. The teachers used the HANDS tool and
this personal trainer to actually make a paper origami model of a frog. This exercise
was chosen in order to allow the teachers to ‚put themselves in the shoes‛ of the
children who would be using HANDS, to illustrate the capabilities, and to show how
it could support logical sequencing and support of executive functioning.
Researchers distributed HANDS phones to participants and they were asked to
complete exercises with the phone:
1. Find out what appointments you have in the diary today,
2. Programme in an appointment of your choice for later today,
3. Use the PT ‘origami frog’ to create your own origami frog.
Child familiarization session:
Schools decided on whether a teaching assistant or teacher was needed to support
individual children in the session. Child familiarization sessions were conducted in a
similar fashion to adult sessions, with appropriate variations in content. A
presentation was delivered around the following themes:
1. Introductions,
2. Purpose of the project,
3. Information on the phone and the HANDS functions,
4. Explanation about the focus group sessions.
21
In addition to getting the children to do activities on the phone, the children were
also asked to complete a worksheet exercise on life and social skills (See Appendix).
This was designed to get them thinking about what the HANDS tool might support
them in doing.
2.1.3 The focus group
The research questions were:
1. To explore how the HANDS tool could be utilized in the UK mainstream
schooling system to promote a) social skills / self management / life skills of students
with ASD, and b) inclusive practices.
2. To identify potential training and implementation requirements.
3. To identify potential barriers and opportunities at mainstream schools, including;
- School rules and the abuse of technology,
- Responsibility
- Technical issues and support
- Student autonomy and voice
4. Identify any major implementation differences between mainstream schools and
special schools.
The aim of the focus groups was to develop discussion relating to the research
questions by focussing on the following key areas:
1. overall attitudes towards the HANDS tool
2. Any issues they may foresee in relation to barriers to implementation, including
probing on technical issues, school rules and issues around misuse of technology,
responsibility for working with HANDS
3. Training and implementation requirements,
4. Inclusion, autonomy and voice and their feelings on the appropriateness of
HANDS within the mainstream setting.
Similarly to the familiarization session, child and adult focus groups were conducted
separately by HANDS researchers. Researchers followed a semi-structured focus
group protocol, differentiated for child and adult groups (See Appendix). The
protocol was based on the project objectives of evaluating the potential for the
HANDS tool in mainstream environment, exploring issues (training and
implementation requirements) and discussing how HANDS may or may not support
schools inclusion of children with SEN.
22
Taking these into consideration, questions for the adult group were organised as
follows:
1. Participants first impressions of the HANDS software, assessing its usefulness in
the classroom and thoughts on any adaptations to current classroom practice.
2. Potential issues / requirements for introducing such a tool into a mainstream
school.
3. Teacher / school thinking about inclusion, implications for inclusion and the
HANDS tool.
Each focus group lasted 45 minutes to 1 hour. A voice recorder was used after which
a transcript was made.
The child focus group protocol included the following:
1. Participants current levels of expertise with mobile technology and their first
impressions of the HANDS tool.
2. How the phone might support the student in developing social and life skills,
3. Identifying things they find difficult at school.
23
2.2 School profiles
All three schools are mixed comprehensives (i.e. non selective intake) in London Boroughs. At all, children with ASD are included
in mainstream classes, however at School K there is also a Designated Special Provision Unit on site, where children with ASD are
taught for some of the time in a separate part of the school. See glossary for explanation of terms used.
School 1 (M) School 2 (K) School 3 (C)
Age range 11-18 11-19 11-16
Size 1253 1276 588
Proportion of students
with learning difficulties
and/or disabilities
Higher than average
Below national average Higher than average
Socio-economic intake Serves an area of ‚significant social
deprivation‛
Students from low income families well
above national average
Students from diverse cultural and social
background
Ethnicity Students from a wide range of ethnic
backgrounds
Students from minority ethnic
background high
Wide range of ethnic groups – largest of
whom is English
Students for whom
English is an additional
language
Above average
Well above average
Above average
No. of students with
ASD
16 students About 40 (including DSP unit) 10 diagnosed
Inclusion All students in mainstream School –
some outreach support from Local
ASD special school
16 students in the DSP. Remaining
students in mainstream provision.
All students in mainstream school
Inclusive style Support expected to withdrawn as
students become more
independent.
On average 2 students to each TA
No formal disapplication
Most support in class with some
Aim is ‚to get children from DSP
spending 50% of time in mainstream
school but with high levels of
support‛
Children in mainstream school are
supported by TAs dependent on
Most support work inside classroom.
One-to-one support slowly withdrawn to
increase independence
Range of withdrawal groups
Additional support in lunchtime and
after-school clubs
24
School 1 (M) School 2 (K) School 3 (C)
withdrawal sessions needs.
Disapplication – formalised according
to the individual
Some disapplication from the curriculum
Teaching approaches ‚We go with what their individual
needs are really‛
Belief in a flexible approach
Adapted curriculum in DSP
Personalised timetable, reduced
school day and permission to leave
class early.
Flexible approach
Long term strategies and goals
Flexible strategy
Teachers can have as much or as little
involvement as they want – ‚it’s up to
them‛
TA’s encouraged to take on
responsibility for each individual student
Staffing allocated to
ASD support
I teacher,1 Higher Level TA, 12
teaching Assistants.
ASD working group
TAs support a range of pupils
including those with ASD,
About 10 staff within DSP
Special Needs Co-coordinator,
Learning support co-coordinator,
20 Learning support assistants,
3 Learning support teachers
Staff Training Strong links with local special
school who give training and
advice
Little in-house training
On line training by school
Educational Psychologist
DSP delivers in house training
Not all TAs are trained to support ASD
Training not planned and little identified
Special needs training day once a year
Ofsted Report in relation
to SEN
‚Excellent provision for pupils with
learning difficulties and/or disabilities
ensures they make outstanding
progress and are fully included‛
‚ A highly inclusive school‛ ‚Those with learning difficulties and/or
disabilities achieve well and, in some
instances, reach better than expected level
because of very good individual support‛
Social and life skills
approaches
After school club
Drama project
Social skills and life skills group
Gardening projects
Puberty discussion groups
Friendship groups
Getting ready for year 10 group
Citizenship and PSHE(Personal
social and health education)
PSHE (Personal social and health
education) curriculum
Lunch club
Work on transition between primary
and secondary school
Social communication groups
Speech therapist
Excel Club for outdoor activities
Titan travel training
Lunchtime social club
Withdrawal social skills lessons
‚Circle of friends‛
Peer mentoring
25
3.0: Data Analysis and Results The focus group recordings were transcribed. A thematic analysis of the data set was
undertaken. This was based, a priori, on the key research questions and the
categories identified from the literature. A scan of the transcripts was made and text
coded to these categories as appropriate. In some cases, further categories were
created based on the responses from the participants.
A visual matrix representation of the key coding categories created during the
analysis, which was used by the research team as a tool to track and refine the
identified patterns. This pattern analysis across the categories then led to the
identification of common themes. This visual matrix is shown in the Appendix.
There were many responses in common with the three schools, indicative of shared
approaches and systems, and also suggesting a level of potential generalizability to
other similar mainstream settings.
3.1 Results – Themes identified
3.1.1 Mainstream user scenarios
One of the key themes was the exploration of potential user scenarios. In both the
adult and child focus groups, participants were forthcoming in generating ideas on
how HANDS could be used to support students with ASD. Table 1 demonstrates
each of the core themes that emerged from the schools.
26
Mainstream user
scenarios
School Examples from the text
Support for transition stages, eg. from primary to secondary education, into post-16 education.
K AM: … another key ... time it might get more heavy use would be at various transitions, so you could use it at the transition from primary to secondary…They could do a visit and there could be a map of the school in it; they could do various things around their new timetables…[Teacher]
Organisation and routines, eg. homework, lunchtimes, timetable, independent study time
M, K, C CM: I admit that I find it kind of difficult to finish my lunch on time and get to lessons. At the beginning of Year 7 I kept forgetting where the French room was and plus it taking me ages to eat my lunch so both of those mean lateness basically...[Child]
Preparation for new experiences and change in the school environment
M, K AK: …. like last Friday when we went on a history trip to…. Belgium, and there was a, one of the autistic boys. …. You can take some pictures and then have it for next year’s year 10, and then they could be more prepared.[Teacher]
Delivering prompts in class
M, C Int: how do you think it could assist the children in a classroom like the one’s at this school? AL: Well, any kind of tasks. In initiating, sequencing, moving on with that task…. Possibly helping them to stay on task. [Support Staff]
Travel by public transport training
K AM: where I thought that might be useful would be with something we're introducing called Titan and Travel Training… the person running that group perhaps could set up the very specific scenarios each time about finding your way around the building and then finding your way to the shop….[teacher}
Getting lost and knowing the way
K I could see that [GPS] being really useful.... if they get on the wrong bus and then you say to them, 'Well okay where are you now?' ... 'Oh I don't know, I can see Marks & Spencer's, I can see ...' you know, if you had that and then that would really make it
27
Table 1. School feedback on mainstream user scenarios.
The scenarios demonstrate that teachers, staff and students can envisage finding a
wide range of uses for the HANDS tool in a mainstream setting, including during
lesson time, around the school building, outside of school and between home and
school. They also demonstrate a variety of different practical uses that it could be put
to, including improving social skills, life skills, travel training, organisation and
timetabling. It is important that a key focus from all schools is on enabling a student
to develop skills which help them to become increasingly independent. Clearly, in
order to fully investigate how a tool like HANDS can be successfully implemented
in mainstream schools, further actual testing would need to take place, however this
does demonstrate a readiness in teacher and staff mentality at mainstream settings
for the school to train students in skills which they need for independence. Staff
point out that social and life skills training is something that is already taking place,
with programs such as Titan Travel Training, a form of independent travel training
on local transport systems, being implemented and one school mention that the
HANDS tool could be absorbed into existing social and life skills programmes.
worth its weight in gold for reassurance for people from the safety point of view…[Teacher]
Non-attendance K AM: It could be very useful ... for children who are non-attending couldn't it, as a link with the school…[Support Staff]
Support in making and maintaining friendships, eg. Social communication
K AM: …In school that person has managed to make relationships and friendships but they're very ... he finds it incredibly hard to instigate contact outside of school; like phoning them to go to the cinema or making those connections, so it could be a useful way to train them about how people make social connections … he doesn't know how to make and sustain relationships and, obviously, nowadays one of the main ways in which children and young people keeps in contact is through using a mobile phone…[Teacher]
Cooking independently C CM: I think it would be useful maybe to maybe help me cook…[Child]
Attending the dentist K Int: Can you think of things you need to learn to do on your own? CJ: To keep calm. CG: Especially at the dentist's. [Child]
28
3.1.2 Training and implementation requirements
School ICT Capability
Whilst none of the three mainstream schools envisaged any major difficulties for
staff in learning how to use the tool, all schools did state that they would require
training on HANDS. At School K staff felt that those individuals who would be
inputting scenarios onto the HANDS software would need direct training, whilst all
other staff would need to be informed about the software and how it would be used
at the school. In alignment with national standards, ICT use in the three mainstream
schools in the UK is becoming increasingly widespread (Hartnell-Young & Heym,
2008), with most teachers becoming increasingly accustomed to including ICT in
their teaching:
AM: Every classroom has got an interactive whiteboard, every teacher has that in their
classroom and most teacher I think are fairly receptive to innovations or to new things
coming in.
However, a report from BECTA (2008) looking into future strategies for technology
in learning in the UK, also reports on high levels of variability across the EU in terms
of teachers competence and ability to access technology in schools. In the UK results
show that 60.2% of teachers can access and feel confidence using ICT in the
classroom, which compares to 48.6% in Denmark and 28% in Sweden. Our
experience in the HANDS project confirms that readiness for schools and teachers to
adopt ICT tools is variable across as well as within countries. Any ICT tool which
aspires to be adopted across the EU must take this into account during
implementation and training.
Children’s mobile phone use
Most of the children at the schools had used or owned a mobile phone. Taken in the
context of the Mobile Life Youth Report (Carphone Warehouse & London School of
Economics 2006), that 91% of children own a mobile phone, this is perhaps
unsurprising. Their proficiency was, however, variable. Students with a special
educational need in the UK are significantly less likely to own a mobile phone than
students who do not have a special educational need. In our study, a couple of the
children had only used their mobile phone to contact their parents, whilst others
used their mobile phone for texting, taking pictures, the music player and playing
games. It is therefore likely that the amount of contact students have had with
mobile phones and their levels of proficiency will vary from individual to
individual. In terms of implementing a tool such as HANDS, students’ ability should
be assessed on an individual basis and it should be expected that some students are
likely to require more or less support than others.
29
Funding Issues
Of importance for the future mainstream use of the HANDS tool is that all three
schools envisaged substantial funding issues for buying mobile phone devices and
paying for the mobile phone contract. Furthermore, there were concerns about
whose responsibility it would be to pay for the phones; the school, the local
education authority or the parents. The SEN Coordinator at School K also raises
another important issue which may arise from mainstream schools funding the
purchase of the phone:
AM: .. if we are going to be buying it or paying for it or asking the Borough to buy it or pay
for it it would have to be, unfortunately, a very outcome-driven thing, where we would have
to be able to say, ‘well we bought these ten handsets and now look how independent our
students are. They started from this point and they’re ended at this point’. And if we can’t see
or measure somehow the progress and the impact< because that’s what it’s all about; people
in the current world that we live in, < then it’s not something we are necessarily going to be
able to persuade people that we need or want.
Schools are increasingly target driven and accountability is paramount.
Furthermore, ASD services expect to see concrete outcomes for interventions before
they are adopted. Clearly the final quantitative and qualitative data from the main
evaluation of prototype 2 of HANDS will be very significant to mainstream schools
when making such financial decisions (D3.5.1; D2.5.1).
3.1.3 Other Themes
School rules and potential misuse of the technology In line with our review of the literature, the data in this study was illustrative of an
ongoing debate about school rules and mobile phone use. None of the three
participating schools currently allow mobile phone use in school. School K and M
had a zero tolerance policy and children were not allowed mobile phones on any
occasions. Children from School M were aware of the strict rules on phone use and
found it difficult to contemplate the school changing its rules. School C offered a
slightly more progressive approach to mobile phone use and one that was beginning
to show a differentiated approach to policy implementation on mobile phone use, ie.
phones can be used for maths calculations.
All schools envisaged their current rules to be a major barrier to introducing
HANDS into the school environment and the key change they would need to make.
Even with the introduction of a support tool such as HANDS, participants did not
believe that general school policy on the use of mobile phones should be reviewed or
changed to include all students at the school. Some staff believed that the policy
should only be adapted for those students elected to use the HANDS mobile phone.
30
As indicated by our literature review, this may not be the ideal approach to take
when including students with special educational needs, as it singles them out,
which can be detrimental. Hutinger (1996) and Grant (2008) both noted that students
with SEN should not feel singled out by their technology use.
All three schools in the sample are yet to move to a more progressive policy stance
on general mobile phone use, highlighting the importance of local school policy on
mobile technology in facilitating the potential effectiveness of applications like
HANDS.
There was some disagreement, in the manner in which change to policy should be
implemented. One ICT teacher at school M believed that mobile phone use should
be implemented on a small scale, individual basis:
AP: I think in the classroom it would come down to the individual teacher rather than a
school policy I think
The adult groups at school’s K and C indicated that a larger-scale policy change
would need to be issued to all staff to ensure awareness of the students who would
be carrying around a mobile phone. In addition all students would need to be aware
of the policy change so that they could accept and understand why some children
would be allowed mobile phones;
AM: you’d have to change the ethos of the other kids who haven’t got one to understand why
these kids< there’s got to be that understanding as well for anything” (School K)
Staff at school K highlight potential mainstream specific barriers to allowing a few
select students to use a tool such as HANDS. In larger schools with higher student
and teacher populations, communication regarding students who are allowed to use
the HANDS phone is essential:
AM:<. There would have to be a caveat wouldn’t there that somehow,,, you somehow give
the information across that this is a different thing and that they are allowed to have that.
AE: Yes, because we have had a certain student that had a reminder on his phone about
location and his phone was confiscated and he was absolutely heartbroken.
These extracts demonstrate that all parties, including teachers, school staff, students
must be informed about whole-school policy change and that this should be
reinforced so that new staff, students, and visitors are aware of the schools policies.
Furthermore, it demonstrates that an open process in which teachers and children
can discuss their views is important.
31
Policy Development and Misuse
In common with findings reported in our review of the literature, there were high
levels of concern about children misusing and being distracted by the phone. In
particular, schools were anxious about children accessing the internet for websites
such as Youtube or Facebook and listening to music. Staff at school M stated that
they might require a setting to bar all activity of this type. Some staff at the school
believed that only some of their students could be trusted to have access to sites like
Facebook.
Staff at school C also pointed out that differences between special needs school and
mainstream schools could impact on whether or not the phone is misused. They
indicated that it may be easier in a smaller special school to monitor how the phone
is being used by the students:
AN: Maybe in a small special needs school<
INT: It’s different.
AN: It’s difficult, or always trying to find a way round the rules. Because that’s what kids
do, to be perfectly honest. If there’s a rule there, it’s to be broken.
Our experience at the four main HANDS test site special schools also demonstrated
that prior to school policy change and the implementation of the HANDS phones,
teachers were apprehensive about allowing mobile phones into the classroom.
However, after systematic and whole school change regarding phone use, teachers
noted very few problems around the school, both for the children using the HANDS
phone and those children who were not allowed to use the HANDS phone.
We might consider, in line with the opinion of staff at school C, that the experience
in mainstream settings may be different from that in special schools, due to the fact
that mainstream schools are typically larger and more complex institutions.
However, the general literature on mobile phone use in mainstream schools reports
similar findings; commonly students do not misuse technology once appropriate
rules for use had been initiated (Learning2Go, 2009a; Hartnell-Young & Heym,
2008). We also note that a key theme in regards to the relationship between the
general mobile phone functions and HANDS tool emerged from our evaluation of
the data from Prototype 2 of HANDS (see Deliverable D3.5.1). This can be
considered as an example of mobile marriage, highlighting that students who had
formed a stronger attachment with the mobile phone functions were more likely to
positively engage with the HANDS tool. Learning2Go (2009b) also reports a similar
finding, whereby those students who were blocked from using the phones internet
function did not engage fully with the device.
However, in respect of the findings from Prototype 2 of HANDS, it is also worth
noting that potential mobile marriage effects were only seen for some children. It
may be that children with ASD who have greater emotional and cognitive flexibility
would potentially experience these effects, as opposed to children with a more
limited cognitive/emotional flexibility.
32
Concerns about manipulation of students with ASD
There were concerns from two out of the three schools that students outside of the
HANDS user group might take advantage of student’s phones and scenarios were
put forward by participants in the adult focus group:
AN: Or somebody [without a hands phone] who’s got no credit might say, oh, lend me your
phone.
AF: Yeah
AN: And might not always remember to give it back.
AF: Yeah
AJ: And might not want to give it back.
AN: Or because it’s not his, you know, not take care of it. So that would be a worry, because
I’m sure they’re expensive< (School C)
Responsibility for damaged, lost or stolen phones
Schools were concerned about whose responsibility it would be to pay for damaged,
lost or stolen phones. They were also worried that vulnerable student’s would be
even more vulnerable from other student’s advances when carrying around an
expensive phone. Again, it is important to state that our findings from testing in the
four HANDS test site special schools, that low levels of damaged and lost phones
were recorded and that only one phone was reported stolen (which was
subsequently found). However, given the higher staff ratios and smaller student
numbers at the HANDS special school test sites, some caution should be exercised in
directly extrapolating these results to larger mainstream schools.
Key Teacher Responsibility
In the implementation and testing of prototypes 1 and 2 of the HANDS tool (See
deliverable D6.2.1), each child using HANDS had an allocated key teacher (usually
the child’s form teacher) who was responsible for creating and managing the
interventions for that child, and for monitoring and managing the child’s use of
HANDS. A form teacher is the teacher responsible for the child’s form group.
Although there were slight differences in arrangements between the four HANDS
test site schools, the general pattern was that the form teacher normally works with
the form group at the beginning and end of the day, and take overall pastoral
responsibility for the children in their form group.
Special school settings tend to have low student to staff ratios, and it is typically the
case that the form teacher has a significant degree of pastoral responsibility for each
individual child in their form class. Due to the greater complexity of curriculum
arrangements in mainstream schools, and the much higher student to staff ratios,
form teachers do not typically have the same level of pastoral relationship or
responsibility for individual children.
33
Unsurprisingly perhaps, there were some concerns expressed in the teacher focus
groups, about who would take the key teacher responsibility for HANDS in a
mainstream setting, and in particular who would create and monitor the
interventions for individual children. This issue is further informed by findings from
the HANDS prototype 2 analysis (D3.5.1). Firstly, that form teachers were not
always ideally placed for implementing a tool such as HANDS and that increased
collaboration was required between all parties involved, including other teachers
working with the children, support staff, parents and the student. Secondly, that in
many instances teachers expressed concern about the amount of time required to
develop and create interventions on HANDS.
All three schools were asked, in the focus group, to discuss who they would identify
to take responsibility for students HANDS phones. School M believed that it should
be a team effort; teachers would take the lead with software, whilst support staff
would support the daily activities and that parents would be involved in meetings
and reviewing the use of the tool. In contrast, School’s K and C thought that teaching
assistants would end up taking the majority of the responsibility for implementing
HANDS and working with the student. This was thought to potentially be
undesirable as it increases the amount of time that a student with complex needs is
taught by unqualified teaching staff.
Issues with multiple teacher involvement
Another potential issue raised in the focus groups, relating to differences between
special and mainstream settings, was that of multiple teacher involvement in
mainstream schools. This relates to the fact that in typical special school settings,
there are a limited number of teachers that a child works with across the week.
Student numbers in special schools are in the order of 50 to 100 children, with a
teaching staff of 10 to 20. In most mainstream secondary schools, student numbers
are 600 to 1000 with a teaching staff in excess of 50. Mainstream schools are
inherently more complex organisations than special schools. Although there were
differences in curriculum complexity across the four main test site schools, in general
children would come in to contact with a maximum of around 5 different teachers
during the week.
This issue was exemplified by the Special Needs Coordinator at School K, who
indicated why the issue of allocating someone responsible for implementing the
HANDS software may be more difficult to solve in a mainstream school than a
special education school:
AM: I think because every student has about at least twelve different teachers< you
couldn’t have all twelve having access to their right scenarios for that student and would be
able to look at their stuff. I think you’d have to allocate a teaching assistant< Because it’s the
34
support staff who are with the child or have the overview of the child in all their lessons<
whereas classroom teachers, they are just going to know how they are doing in English.
Establishing a person who is responsible for the software, making sure that they are
supported and do not feel ‘overloaded’ by work involved in implementing HANDS,
is a substantial barrier to successfully implementing a support tool. Such concerns
could be ameliorated by the development during prototype two implementation in
HANDS of the ‚Tunnels‛ support system, which offers the user guidance solutions
to technical and pedagogical problems when implementing the software, as well as
shared templates based on prior use by other teachers
The students at School K felt that increased responsibility should be allocated to
parents for putting scenarios onto the software:
AJ: they know your day-to-day life, your routine.
A key finding from the HANDS project (D3.5.1) is that parent involvement is
important for increasing student engagement and facilitating the use of HANDS
outside and between home and school. This type of input was found to be important
when supporting students’ social and life skill needs, the development of which
typically is practised and consolidated in the home.
Better technical support
The major difference that was found between the mainstream schools we spoke with
and special schools in the HANDS project was that in mainstream schools the ICT
support was located within the school. At all three schools an in-house team dealt
with any ICT issues and queries. In contrast, staff at Helen Allison school in the UK
must go through an external agency which can be time consuming and complicated
in order to repair / amend any technical resources.
Student motivation
Students at School K felt that the end-users should have more control and say over
what is programmed onto the phone:
CJ: < I think you should be< like yourself should be able to program it (School K)
During the testing of Prototype 1 and 2 at special needs schools we have seen that
when selecting behavioural goals to create HANDS interventions, student
motivation to achieve the goal is important. In other words, unless the student
themselves feels that the behavioural goal is something that they want to achieve,
the intervention on the mobile device is unlikely to be effective. Further, there was
evidence to suggest that the use of the HANDS tool may be more effective with
students who are able to articulate specific behavioural goals that they are well
35
motivated to achieve (D3.4.1, D3.5.1). This finding is consonant with the ethical
paradigm put forward by Fogg (2003) in the initial formulations of persuasive
technology design. Thus we can in fact view student autonomy and consideration of
student voice as important from an empirical perspective, as well as from the more
ideological imperatives of inclusion.
The responses from the student focus groups also lend some corroborating evidence
to support the importance of considering student motivation when selecting both
interventions to create on the HANDS tool and which students are most likely to
benefit from the use of the HANDS tool. For example, the students in the focus
group at school K evaluated the HANDS tool somewhat objectively as being useful
for others but perhaps not for themselves. They were open in talking about the
benefits of the tool, but also in expressing that, potentially, they may not want to use
the tool. One student, CG, found it difficult to think how the HANDS tool could be
useful for him personally.
CG: Uh, I thought it was quite useful but people who have been here for quite long,
like me and CJ, we wouldn't really need it because we've been here for like four years
now.
CJ: I would! CL: Or if you're not ... if like you're very able and like on the high point and you're very able
and you don't need a lot of help at all or barely none ... you just don't need it because you like
just have to get your head round things and technology isn't really completely the answer.
In contrast, in the following example, the student expressed the view that the
HANDS tool could potentially help him:
CM:I would like to use it to help me with my homework, mainly my maths homework
but I can use it for other subjects as well.
Int: So with the homework what would the phone help you to do, what is it you find
difficult with the homework?
CM: Maybe like steps, how to do a maths problem or something but does it have
anything on it that like it gives you like advice how to like do homework quicker
maybe?
Int : Well you teacher would have to put a story on there which can instruct you on
how to do it quicker. Would that kind of thing be useful to you?
CM: It probably would be useful< (School C).
This potentially supports our conclusions from the main HANDS project that
student motivation to want to implement the behaviour change on the HANDS tool
is an important factor mediating the likely success of an intervention on HANDS.
36
The role of support staff
Support staff participating in the focus groups at all of the schools saw themselves as
vital to the children, often emphasizing the emotional support they provided and
not all saw the dependency of students on teaching assistants as negative. One
support staff member at school K commented on how adversely students behave
when their support is not present as ‚it can totally throw them‛. This staff member
envisaged a scenario where a HANDS intervention was created which had a video
of her giving instructions, which the student would follow. In the focus group
discussions, support staff indicated anxiety about the support staff role potentially
being undermined by the use of technology in mainstream schools and also a
concomitant belief in its irreplaceability by technology per se. For example:
AF: And those with the relation, there’s a relation aspect to their, the relationship
with their Learning Support Assistant, then it would remove that.
Int: Do you think that would be a good thing to remove that relationship?
AN: I don’t think so, no. I think a lot of the children need that relationship with an
adult as well.
AL: It wouldn’t be a good thing, no. I think it’s essential.
AN: It’s a comfort thing as well.
AF: Yeah.
AN: For them to know that they’re there.
AL: And it’s a very positive thing for a lot of them.
It is interesting and important to note the conceptualization by support staff of
technology such as HANDS as a threat. However, the HANDS tool is intended to be
an adjunct to the existing professional roles of teachers and support staff. Evidence
from the main HANDS project (D3.5.1) does not indicate either actual role
replacement or the fear of role replacement by support staff using HANDS in the
four test site special schools. Nevertheless the existence of such anxieties is a
potentially important factor to consider when planning the implementation of
HANDS and similar technology in mainstream settings.
Perhaps more realistically, in further contributions in focus groups, support staff
were keen to emphasise the role of the HANDS tool as a transitional support - useful
either when they were not present or when the children were transferring between
home and school; or in the further education sections of the schools (age 16-19)
where students had opportunities for increased independence or for the next step
beyond school in higher education or the workplace. This could potentially offer
support staff and teachers a more ‘comfortable’ area in which to support students
and one which is less perceived as a threat.
3.1.4 Mobile Technology and Promoting Inclusion
37
Issues with Labelling; amelioration by mobile marriage
In each of the mainstream schools, one of the most important aspects, for the
students with autistic spectrum disorder, was to be seen as ‚the same‛ as other
children. This was particularly evident from responses from children and parents in
the focus groups. A parent at School M recalled how unwilling her son was to carry
a disability bus pass, which had led to him being teased by his peers. The fact that
HANDS is implemented on a ‚cool‛ Smartphone device was seen as a positive
attribute. For example, a teacher at school K commented: -
AT: Yes because what you don't want happening is because the kid wants to feel accepted
don't they ... they don't want to feel, 'Oh my goodness I've got this cumbersome phone in
front of me because you've ended up having to put it in a bright pink box, so that everyone
knows it’s a HANDS, so they're allowed to use that as well ... you don't want it to become
something like that; it's got to be seen as a regular item, which in turn, brings up this issue
of, 'Well I want one!' and it's a big issue for the students .. (School K).
In this instance, the phone was seen to have an advantage because of its ‚cool‛,
modern look, and the fact that it was part of young people’s culture. This can be seen
as another aspect of mobile marriage – i.e. the development of an emotional
attachment to and identification with mobile devices. Further comments indicated
that, potentially, students with ASD who had not previously owned a Smartphone
device, could through ownership of a Smartphone for HANDS, gain greater
acceptance by their peers. For example:
AT: They don't always feel accepted and they ...
Int: But ... sorry ... accepted by who?
AT: By their peers. It is important for them to feel accepted by their peers and in that sense
for me, what comes to my mind now, the phone offers that little bit more acceptance really
because they don't usually carry phones around with them anyway (School K)
These responses converge with the experience with the main HANDS project
(D3.5.1, D3.4.1), in which we found significant evidence of the effect of mobile
marriage, and the positive potential effects in terms of identification with youth
culture that having the Smartphone for HANDS was able to promote.
Potential Stigmatization
Conversely, school M saw the phone itself as a tool which could potentially identify
the students as being different from their peers. School staff discussed use of the
phone if the school rules forbidding the use of phones in school remained in place.
We have considered this in light of the arguments made in the inclusion literature
(e.g. Grant, 2008; Hutinger, 1996) to the effect that students with and without special
educational needs should have access to the same supports and tools in the
mainstream environment in order to limit students sense of labelling, stigmatization
38
and isolation. Responses by students indicated that they themselves were aware of
the stigma of being seen as different. For some they have difficult memories of being
identified as having special educational needs. One child recalled his early
experiences of being bullied in mainstream school.
Receptivity preference to behavioural interventions delivered via technology
However for some students from the mainstream schools, they felt that the HANDS
tool would have an advantage, should they need support as they felt that responding to an intervention on HANDS would be a better option than being nagged by a parent or teacher: Int: Would you rather your parent or your teacher told you to do it, would you rather the phone told you? CN: Well um, I’d rather put it on my phone because then I wouldn’t want my, my mum nagging you it’s just going to be a bit pointless. (School M) This could be because delivering the intervention on the Smartphone takes away the emotional element of being reminded by an adult. This potential positive response was also envisaged by support staff responses in the focus groups, for example:
AJ: It could be more discreet. You know, if you have a child that has an Learning Support
Assistant there, it’s quite obvious if they’ve got some small gadget that can’t be very well
seen, then that removes that difficulty.
AN: Gadget, yeah. So that’s individual as well. Because some children do not like
somebody sitting beside them or hovering behind them.
Int: Yeah.
AN: Other children will insist, you sit beside me, Miss. You have to be here and you have
to help me, don’t bother with anyone else. So for the ones that didn’t want anyone there, it
would be an asset. You just have a little gizmo on the desk that would explain things.
(School C)
These considerations for mainstream use are in line with evidence from the main
HANDS project, where in a number of cases, individual children were more
positively inclined to receive behavioural interventions from HANDS than from
their teachers (D3.5.1).
Promoting Autonomy and Independence
Responses indicated that children, parents and teachers recognised the potential for
mobile technology such as HANDS to promote autonomy and independence. For
example, the HANDS concept was praised by one school as there is the potential for
the HANDS tool to decrease the dependency of the student on adult support staff
and increase their inclusion into school life:
39
Int: No, so coming back to the phone, do you think the phone would have a part in
supporting you and enabling inclusion, and if so why?
AP: I think it takes the pupil away from the staff, and allows them to integrate into a
school on their own.
AR: It’s a difference isn’t it?
AP: And that’s the definition really of inclusion.
AR: That’s inclusion yeah.
Int: So it’s independence really?
AP: Yeah, I mean the more independent you are the more you can lead a normal school life
the better, and the further you get away from your support assistant and we find that as
pupils go through they can become dependent on the people they work with, and that will
remove some of that (School M)
4.0: Conclusions: Guidelines for implementing cognitive support tools for children with ASD in mainstream schools
The mainstream schools study has indicated that when considering the use of mobile
technology such as HANDS to develop social and life skills with children with ASD,
many of the common issues reported in the literature on the introduction of mobile
technology in general in to classrooms are also highly relevant. School policy on
mobile phone use, concerns over abuse of technology, technical and support issues,
and teacher and student attitudes to technology were all areas identified in the
general literature which were raised as concerns by the respondents in this study.
It is clearly important to bear these issues in mind when considering the
introduction of mobile technology to help young people with ASD (and other
categories of special educational needs) in to mainstream schools. However, more
importantly, perhaps, the study identified a number of specific issues related
particularly to the use of mobile applications for young people with ASD, such as
HANDS, which are designed to develop social and life skills and promote social
inclusion. We summarise these as emergent guidelines for the implementation of
HANDS and similar technology in mainstream schools:
Guideline 1: Student Identification with Technology; Implications for School Policy
Responses from the participants in the mainstream study and our consideration of
the literature on student labelling and stigmatization suggests that schools should
seriously consider implementing whole school policies which allow for a more
liberal use of mobile technology. Experience with the main HANDS project has
shown that with proper policy guidelines and a joint implementation of these by
teaching staff, can facilitate the use of mobile technology in the classroom for
appropriate purposes, and concomitantly minimizing instances of misuse. A liberal
policy where a range of students use mobile technology for academic and social
learning purposes, rather than just students with an ASD diagnosis, is more likely to
40
avoid issues of stigmatization and labelling, and to facilitate use of the mobile
technology which enhances the self esteem and peer regard of the young people
using HANDS or similar technology. Further, the mainstream study and the main
HANDS project identified the phenomenon of mobile marriage, whereby young
people using mobile technology develop an emotional attachment to it via repeated
intensive use. The mediating effect of mobile marriage suggests that a liberal use
policy whereby students can use mobile technology for a range of academic and
social purposes is more likely to increase the effectiveness of behavioural
interventions delivered via mobile applications such as HANDS. Whilst we
recognise that liberal use policies which facilitate mobile phone use outside of the
pure classroom environment do increase the risk of misuse such as cyber bullying,
schools should still consider whether properly managed and implemented policies
can act to ameliorate and minimize such risks.
Guideline 2: Key teacher identification
The mainstream study has highlighted the importance of clearly identifying, during
implementation, which person will take lead responsibility for the creation of
interventions for each individual child using HANDS. There were different
perspectives on how this issue should be solved, and perhaps given the limitations
of the study, it may not be feasible to give concrete recommendations, particularly as
the optimal solution may vary from school to school depending on the specifics of
management organisation and curriculum structures. However, it is clear that
mainstream schools need to give detailed consideration to this issue at the
implementation stage.
One potential solution is indicated by the results of the main HANDS study which
have indicated a) the importance of increasing the involvement of parents in making
decisions and having input to the creation and monitoring of interventions, and b)
the potential efficacy of the tunnels guidance and template sharing system in
reducing teacher time required to configure HANDS. Mainstream schools could
consider a key teacher approach with an additional distributed responsibility
system. In this model, one key teacher is still identified as the main contact point for
the creation and monitoring of the use of HANDS, but there is distributed
responsibility to parents and teaching assistants in particular.
Guideline 3: Promoting Inclusion via developing student autonomy and
independence
It was clear that in general the respondents in the mainstream study could see the
potential for HANDS and similar technology to foster the independence of young
people with ASD and thus promote their inclusion in mainstream settings.
The main HANDS study (see D3.5.1) found that student motivation to achieve goals
specified for behavioural interventions delivered via the mobile application was a
key factor determining effectiveness. Responses from the mainstream study
supported the contention that this is likely to be an important factor in mainstream
41
schools, and that giving recognition to the young person’s opinion on what they
perceive their goals to be (student voice) is crucial in identifying potential effective
interventions. Whilst recognising the tension between student capability and adult
expectations, it is nevertheless clear that the opinions of the young people
themselves need to be recognised if mobile applications such as HANDS are to be
effective in promoting independence, and contributing to successful inclusion in
mainstream schools.
Guideline 4: Capability and Autonomy
Our empirical findings stand in contrast, to the argument made by some authors in
the pedagogic literature that students with ASD lack the ability to communicate and
reflect imaginatively on their needs (e.g. Jordan, 2008).
Nevertheless, we accept the need to recognise that there exists a tension between the
goals set by the child, and the expectations of their teachers and parents. This is
often due to capability. For example, an adolescent child may want to stay in bed in
the morning and not get up to go to school. The child lacks the ability, due to
immaturity, to extend their frame of reference beyond the present. Their parents and
teacher, however, realise that attending school is crucial for their future ability to
function and reach their potential as adults. To a significant extent this tension is
typical of all adult-child relationships and certainly of teacher-child relationships in
general, not just those where the child has a special educational need.
In most educational contexts, the solution to this tension is not found in either a)
simply acceding to the child’s directly expressed intentions or b) ignoring their
expressed intentions and relying solely on the teachers’ independent assessment of
their needs. Rather, effective teachers and effective schools find a balance between
listening to the expressed needs and goals of children, and making use of their adult
maturity and authority to set realistic expectations for the child and to foster their
developing ability to make rational and informed choices (Noddings, 2005;
Kirschenbaum & Henderson, 1989). In fact, we argue that the existence of this
creative tension between student autonomy and teacher support is one of the key
reasons why a persuasive mobile application such as HANDS cannot be
implemented as a ‚stand alone‛ solution. Rather, we recommend that it must be
integrated so that its use is interwoven with the ongoing relationship between
teacher, parents and child. In other words, the online intervention delivered on the
mobile device must be integrated with the ongoing offline interventions (i.e the face
to face relationship between teacher and child).
Another issue that should be considered in relation to capability and autonomy,
although we didn’t find evidence relating to it in the responses and data analysis, is
that of potential dependence/addiction to mobile technology. Dependence from and
addiction to both traditional support tools and digital devices is a known
42
phenomenon in clinical practice in ASD, and it is at least a possibility that with
sustained levels of use in both mainstream and special school settings, that such
dependence could occur. It is, however, at least encouraging that in the main
HANDS project, we didn’t see any evidence of this, although this may be due to the
relatively short period of use of the technology.
43
5.0 References
Ainscow, M. (1997). Towards Inclusive Schooling. British Journal of Special Education,
24 (1), 3-6.
Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing Inclusive Education Systems: What are the levers
for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6 (2), 109-124.
Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning, European M-learning Project
12-14. Retrieved 22 July 2011 from www.lsda.org.uk/files/pdf/041923RS.pdf
Barnard, J., Prior, A., & Potter, D. (2000). Inclusion and autism: Is it working? 1,000
examples of inclusion in education and adult life from the National Autistic Society’s
members. London: The National Autistic Society.
Barnard, J., Broach, S., Potter, D., & Prior, A. (2002). Autism in Schools: Crisis or
Challenge? The National Autistic Society. UK: Newnorth Print Ltd.
Barrett, D. (2011). Pupils distracted by gadgets, say teachers. The Telegraph Online 17
