| Date post: | 26-Dec-2015 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | jessie-owens |
| View: | 214 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Twenty-Five Years Later: How is Technology Used in the
Education of Students with Disabilities
Cindy Okolo Michigan State University
Jeff DiedrichMichigan’s Integrated Technology Supports
Assistive Technology & the IEP
CON
SID
ERAT
ION
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)
CON
SID
ERAT
ION
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)
CON
SID
ERAT
ION
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)
AT devices and services must be considered
CON
SID
ERAT
ION
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)
AT devices and services must be considered
CON
SID
ERAT
ION
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
AT devices and services must be considered
CON
SID
ERAT
ION
Research suggests process of AT consideration is imprecise and unpredictable
Accessible Instructional Materials
Data shows AT is underutilized (dating back to ‘90s)
Specify as components of the IEP
Document
AT devices and services must be considered
Purpose of the Study
➭To get a snapshot from a broader group of stakeholders
➭Ever-evolving Technology Options
Research Questions
1
2
3
4
5
6
KNOWLEDGE
What knowledge do educators have about the use of technology for students with different types of disabilities?
Research Questions
7
Impact
Decision-Making
Tech Use
PD
Support
Knowledge
Barriers
1
2
3
4
5
6
SUPPORT
What are educators’ perceptions of the support they receive for using technology with students with disabilities?
Research Questions
7
Impact
Decision-Making
Tech Use
PD
Support
Knowledge
Barriers
1
2
3
4
5
6
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
What are educators’ perceptions of the need for and interest further PD?
Research Questions
7
Impact
Decision-Making
Tech Use
PD
Support
Knowledge
Barriers
1
2
3
4
5
6
TECH USE
In what ways do educators use technology to assist students with disabilities?
Research Questions
7
Impact
Decision-Making
Tech Use
PD
Support
Knowledge
Barriers
1
2
3
4
5
6
DECISION-MAKING
How are decisions made about technology use for students with disabilities and who is involved in these decisions?
Research Questions
7
Impact
Decision-Making
Tech Use
PD
Support
Knowledge
Barriers
IMPACT
What are educators’ beliefs about the impact that technology might have on students with disabilities?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Research Questions
7
Impact
Decision-Making
Tech Use
PD
Support
Knowledge
Barriers
BARRIERS
What are educators’ beliefs about barriers to more widespread technology use, and what could be done to alleviate these barriers?
1
2
3
4
5
6Impact
Research Questions
Decision-Making
Tech Use
PD
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
1,143 Usable Surveys (95 eliminated)
Respondents
73% had over 10 years experience74% had a masters degree or higher
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
73% had over 10 years experience74% had a masters degree or higher
1,143 Usable Surveys (95 eliminated)
Average 1.8 professional credentials related to special ed/related service (e.g., endorsement, certificate, etc.)
Respondents
90% worked with at least one student with a disability; Most taught more than one category of disability
Administrators
16%
Related Service Personnel
21%
Special Education Teachers
38%
Multiple Roles
7%
Technology Providers
3%
General Education Teachers
14%
Respondents: Primary Professional Responsibility
Respondents: Type of Community
15%
47%
32%
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
38%
< WEEKLY
13%
DK30%
≥ DAILY28%
SWD Use of Technology in School
DK30%
Improve Literacy Skills
≥ WEEKLY
30%
< WEEKLY
12%
DK28%
≥ DAILY28%
SWD Use of Technology in School
DK28%
Improve Communication
Skills
≥ WEEKLY
38%
< WEEKLY
13%
DK32%
≥ DAILY30%
SWD Use of Technology in School
DK32%
Improve Math Skills
≥ WEEKLY
31%
< WEEKLY
14%
DK43%
≥ DAILY20%
SWD Use of Technology in School
DK43%
Reward for Good
Behavior
≥ WEEKLY
26%
< WEEKLY
11%
DK35%
≥ DAILY26%
SWD Use of Technology in School
DK35%
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
Self-Reported Knowledge: I Know How To Use Technology….
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
Self-Reported Knowledge: I Know How To Use Technology….
At Risk for Learning/Behavior
Problems
To assist students with:
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
Self-Reported Knowledge: I Know How To Use Technology….
English Language Learners
To assist students with:
M = 2.7; SD = 1.0
Total Knowledge Score
Mean
40.7
35
39.9
48.9
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
Mean
23
19.822.1
25.422.8
24.7
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
Mean
12.8
11.7
12.6
13.6
12.1
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%
Who participates in decisions about technology use?
General Education Teachers
Parents AT Specialists
40% 40% 35%
Who participates in decisions about technology use?
StudentsTechnology
Coordinators
31% 31%
Who participates in decisions about technology use?
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
AT
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
use
Improved use & outcomes
inside & outside of
school
Can become knowledgeable
users and advocates
Put pressure on schools
Advocate for self throughout
life-span
Implications: Family & Student Involvement
Rarely included in decisions
Not as dependent on school-based
use
Improved use & outcomes
inside & outside of
school
Can become knowledgeable
users and advocates
Put pressure on schools
Advocate for self throughout
life-span
Implications: Family & Student Involvement
Rarely included in decisions
Can become knowledgeable
users and advocates
Not as dependent on school-based
use
Put pressure on schools
Advocate for self throughout
life-span
Improved use & outcomes
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
Jeff DiedrichMichigan’s Integrated Technology Supports
mits.cenmi.org [email protected]
Thank you
