• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Perceived Knowledge, Attitudes, and Challenges of AT Use in Special Education

Posted on: Sunday, 31 July 2005, 03:01 CDT

Assistive technology (AT) has opened a new era and unique opportunities for individuals with disabilities. With the increasing emphasis on standards-based instruction and assessment, the use of AT for students with disabilities becomes critical. Assistive technology was first defined as both services and devices in the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 (PL 100-407), and this definition was later adopted in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990). Its definition is broad, including both low and high technology devices. With support from legislation and research findings, AT has gained a strong base for the education of individuals with disabilities.

Researchers (Duhaney & Duhaney, 2000; Garrison-Harrell, Kamps, & Kravits, 1997; Mirenda, 2001) have found that AT enhances the independence and quality of life of individuals with disabilities, promoting social integration by providing the means for communication, mobility, and recreation. AT also increases learning opportunities in a general education curriculum (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), and improves students' selfesteem by enhancing their productivity (Maccini, Gagnon, &. Hughes, 2002,- Mathews, Hughes, & Olson, 2000).

IDEA '97 requires each individualized education plan (IEP) team to consider using AT to improve students' performance (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Professionals must be knowledgeable about AT and able to make recommendations during IEP meetings for use in classrooms. Teacher preparation programs share the responsibility to educate teacher candidates with local school districts. However, the programs have been criticized for their slow response (Lahm & Nickels, 1999) and for teacher candidates not being sufficiently prepared when they graduate (Anderson & Petch-Hogan, 2001).

Some research has now been done on teachers' knowledge and/or attitudes about AT Anderson and Petch-Hogan delivered a workshop to a group of pre-service special education teachers. Participants increased their AT knowledge and their use of technology as a teaching tool in their practicum sites increased. Others (Maushak, Kelley, & Blodgett, 2001) have examined AT attitudes and knowledge of pre-service general education teachers after a mini-workshop. They showed that on the posttest, participants improved their knowledge, but not attitudes. The researchers emphasized a continued need for AT training in teacher preparation programs, implying that positive attitudes of AT use should follow.

Derer, Polsgrove, and Rieth (1996) surveyed inservice teachers in three states (i. e., Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee). The survey asked about the status of AT in classrooms, barriers and challenges, and benefits. About 34% of teachers used AT, and they often reported using high-tech devices (e. g., educational software). Results showed that a majority of teachers have inadequate knowledge of AT and suggested various training formats to reach the teachers.

The study presented here was designed to assess perceived knowledge, attitudes, and challenges of AT use by special education teachers in California. We sought to assess how AT services have been implemented since the mandate of IDEA '97. Specifically, we focused on the following four issues: a) special education related personnel's attitudes toward AT, b) perceived AT knowledge and skills, (c) perceived AT challenges and barriers, and (d) satisfaction during teacher preparation college courses.

METHOD

Survey Development

The survey consisted of 4 multiple-choice questions, 15 open- ended items, and 20 Likert-scale items (Strongly Agree=1, Strongly Disagree= 5). The multiple-choice and open-ended items asked questions about demographic information, backgrounds of students in the participants' classrooms, perceived AT challenges and barriers, and (d) types of specialized devices in their classrooms. The Likert- scale items asked participants' perceptions about special education related personnel's AT knowledge and skills, AT resources, and their teacher preparation programs. Items on participants' knowledge and skills were developed based on the professional competencies of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 1998) and the International Society for Technology in Education (Thomas & Knezek, 2002). These competencies are denoted by superscript letters in Appendix A.

Sampling Procedure

The sample was comprised of special education personnel in a mostly rural county with a high migrant population in California. The county is comprised of 154,913 students, 48 school districts, including 1 of the largest school districts in the state during the 2002-2003 school year (Kern County Network for Children, 2004). The county is also characterized by the lowest median income levels and highest unemployment levels, and ranks poorly on other key socioeconomic factors (i. e., dropout rates, drug abuse, levels of education) in the state (California Department of Education, 2001). The student population in the county is 49.8%Hispanic, 37.7% White, 7.4% African American, and 1.9% Asian (Education Data Partnership, 2004). Other ethnic groups are American Indian (0.8%) and Filipino(1.7%).

For this study, 599 names of special education personnel and their schools were obtained from 48 school districts in the county. Information from two districts (i. e., one high and one elementary school district) was provided by school administrators. Names from the other 46 school districts were acquired from the most recent county school directory. Of the 599 questionnaires sent out, 154 valid responses were returned.

RESULTS

Demographics

The respondents were teachers (91%), specialists (7.8%), and coordinators (1.3%). Half of the respondents (N = 77; 50%) work with 7- to 12-year old students. Among the respondents, 22% had received more than 40 hours of AT training.

Perceptions of AT Knowledge and Skills

More than half of the respondents (N = 99; 64.3%) reported they were comfortable using AT in classrooms. The results also showed respondents were more confident using academic software than AT for students with physical or sensory disabilities. Chi-square analyses showed that respondents with over 40 AT training hours overwhelmingly agreed that AT was an important part of the daily routine for all of their students (71.9%). Conversely, the majority (73.9%) of those respondents who had no training disagreed when asked if AT was an important part of in their daily routine, "2(6, N = 141 ) = 36.05, p = .000. The 67.6% of respondents with over 40 AT training hours agreed they could identify and use AT to ensure students' educational access while only 8% of respondents with no training agreed, "2(6, N = 147) =25.76, p = .000. No significant difference was found between AT training hours and respondents' comfort level of using AT in their classrooms, "2 (6, N = 145) = 10.35, p = .111. Although there was no statistical difference in the perception of those who had O to 40 AT training hours (i. e., 61.5% to 66.7%), it is worth noting that 85% of the respondents with over 40 hours training agreed they feel comfortable using AT.

AT Resources and Perceptions

Sixty-four respondents (42.6%) said they had one or no computers in the classroom. Sixty-two percent of the respondents reported they did not use any computer adaptive devices (e. g., touch screen, joy stick, specialized mouse). The most typical computer applications used by teachers were wordprocessing software followed by email. Students primarily used computers for word processing followed by educational software. When other software was used, it was reading related. Seventy-seven respondents (50%) reported their administrators supported the use of AT The majority of respondents (81.2%) were not aware of community AT resources.

Barriers to AT Use

The largest barrier to AT use was lack of knowledge (N = 58, 41%). Several quotes from the respondents highlight their challenges and barriers. The challenges/barriers were "learning how to use the devices,""knowledge of possible AT beyond academic skill development,""I am not aware of what other AT is available," and "lack of knowledge on my part." Results are similar to a previous study (Lewis, 1997) where teacher training in AT use was found to be crucial.

Twenty-seven respondents (19%) reported the lack of resources and materials as a barrier in AT use. They had outdated models or a limited number of computers. In addition, their classroom or computer lab did not provide adequate programs and support for students. One respondent wrote, "The computers in my classroom are 10 years old with no printers. Our student can type a document without the capability to print or save to a floppy." Seven percent of the total respondents stated they had computers or equipment that were not up-to-date.

The third highest rated barrier was time (N = 26, 18.5%). Respondents expressed the lack of time to learn AT to examine new products or software, to set-up equipment, and to plan for AT use. One respondent pointed out that "with varied needs, the most significant barrier is finding the time to get trainedand train the student to use AT" The respondents also highlighted the need for more training and lack of knowledge as another barrier. "I am not educated in what is available, nor do I currently have time to do self research." The comments on this issue are similar to Derer et al.'s (1996) study where respondents' top concerns were the lack of teachers' time to teach children and to train themselves. Although several years have passed since the study, the issues remain current.

Funding is another barrier. Although 23 respondents ( 16%) mentioned the funding issue, this is indirectly related to the lack of resources and materials (19%). As one respondent indicated, "money is always the reason." The response may be a reflection of their school districts (i. e., low socioeconomic status), but Lewis (1997) also reported that adequate funding is a factor to the use of technology. In times of tight budgets and economic hardship, this will continue to be one of the biggest challenges to AT adoption in special education classrooms.

Teacher Preparation Programs

Only 24.7% of the respondents (N = 38) agreed they had adequate AT training from their teacher preparation programs. In addition, 87.7% of respondents (N = 135) disagreed when asked if their teacher preparation programs emphasized AT use. They also reported in an open-ended question that little or no information on AT was addressed (N = 47; 27.7%), and more AT information was needed (N = 22; 14.3%). Twelve respondents (7.6%) indicated they learned what information they did have through workshops, conferences, or inservice training.

DISCUSSION

Results of the survey revealed the current status of AT use in the public schools of one rural county. One encouraging result was that 22% of respondents received more than 40 hours of AT training, while 18.2% had received none. Although this number (18.2%) is lower than the 20% reported in Derer et al.'s (1996) study or the 50% found by Abner and Lahm (2002), it is still an unacceptable rate. The results show that about half of the participants (48.7%) received zero or very limited training (i. e., 1 to 5 hours). Clearly, when considering the rapid changes of technology, more training is essential.

Respondents identified that lack of training was their biggest barrier to using AT Colleges and universities have begun to offer AT courses; however, a large portion of teachers earned their credentials or certificates before the courses were available. The training or retraining of teachers should not depend solely on teacher preparation programs or individual school districts. It is crucial that school districts and teacher preparation programs actively collaborate to provide classroom, in-service, or online training.

Some limitations are to be noted, as the results of this study should be carefully interpreted because of the limited geographical area. Nonetheless, these results parallel those found by other researchers and highlight the plight of rural and poor areas in our country.

Special education related personnel and local school districts should be committed and required to provide AT for an appropriate and least restrictive education. They should also be cognizant of obstacles and barriers to AT delivery, or students will not benefit from its use. This study is a snapshot of the current picture and suggests what we need to do to assist students with disabilities. The potential of AT is enormous, and it should be an integral part of individuals' everyday lives. We should not take away potential benefits to students by ignoring AT needs.

REFERENCES

Abner, G., &. Lahm, E. (2002). Implementation of assistive technology with students who are visually impaired: Teachers' readiness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 98-105.

Anderson, C., & Petch-Hogan, B. (2001). The impact of technology use in special education field experience on preservice teachers' perceived technology expertise. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 27-44.

California Department of Education. (2001). Dropouts in California public schools, grades 9-12. Sacramento: Educational Demographics Unit. Retrieved April 6, 2001, from http:// www.cde.ca.gov

Council for Exceptional Children. (1998). What every special educator should know: The international standards for the preparation and certification of special education teachers (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.

Derer, K., Polsgrove, L, &. Rieth, H. (1996). A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 3, 62-80.

Duhaney, L., &. Duhaney, D. (2000). Assistive technology: Meeting the needs of learners with disabilities. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 393-401.

Education Data Partnership. (2004). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California's k-12 schools. Retrieved February 7, 2004, from http://www.ed-data.kl2.ca.us

Garrison-Harrell, L, Kamps, D., & Kravits, T. (1997). The effects of peer networks on social-communicative behaviors for students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 241-254.

Kern County Network for Children. (2004). Report Card: 2004. Retrieved November 9, 2004, from http://www.static.kern. org/gems/ ConditionsOfChildren/ReportCard2004.pdf

Lahm, E., & Nickels, B. (1999). What do you know? Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(1), 56-63.

Lewis, R. (1997). Changes in technology use in California's special education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 233- 242.

Maccini, P, Gagnon, J., & Hughes, C. (2002). Technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 247-261.

Mathews, D., Hughes, C., & Olson, J. (2000). Technology for teaching and learning. In J. L. Olson & M. M. Pratt (Eds.), Teaching children and adolescents with special needs (3rd ed.), pp. 322-346. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Maushak, N., Kelley, P., & Blodgett, T. (2001). Preparing teachers for the inclusive classroom: A preliminary study of attitudes and knowledge of assistive technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 419-431.

Mirenda, P (2001). Autism, augmentative communication, and assistive technology: What do we really know? Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 141-152.

Thomas, L., & Knezek, D. (2002, Summer). Standards for technology- supported learning environments. The State Education Standard, 14- 20.

U. S. Department of Education. (1999). Federal Register Sec. 300.346, 64. Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http:// www.wrightskw.ram/kw/code_regs/lDEARegs_PartC.htm

U. S. Department of Education (2000). Twenty-second annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Guest Columnists: Yeunjoo Lee and Luis A. Vega

Yeunjoo Lee (Department of Special Education) and Luis A. Vega (Department of Psychology) teach at California State University, Bakersfield. Project LASER (H326M000002) is a funded cooperative agreement of the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Correspondence concerning this column should be addressed to Yeunjoo Lee, Department of Special Education, EDUC 22, California State University, Bakersfield, CA 93311-1099, ylee@csub.edu.

APPENDIX A

Copyright Journal of Special Education Technology Spring 2005

Source: Journal of Special Education Technology

More News in this Category