Outline
Our
task for this assignment was to summarize, critique, and compare six journal
articles, as well as offer personal reflections about the content or our
learning. In this blog, I will summarize
each article in turn, and then I will offer a comparison and critique. This will be followed by a short personal
reflection.
Summaries
Cumming, T. M., Strnadova, I.,
& Singh S. (2014). iPads as instructional tools to enhance learning opportunities for students with developmental disabilities: an action research
project. Action
Research, 12(2),
151–176. doi:10.1177/1476750314525480
This paper describes action
research in which an ICT integration consultant and five special education teachers
used iPads to support developmentally disabled
high school students
at a private school in Sydney. The students
were affected by epilepsy and autism, moderate intellectual disabilities, or autism
and a global developmental delay, and all received instruction in an inclusive
setting as well as pull-out to the special education classroom. Initially, teachers received professional development about iPads and
collected baseline evidence about students’ abilities and engagement. Then they selected appropriate apps to provide content material in a
variety of ways, increase engagement and independence, and serve as
communication tools. These were used
during instruction and more evidence about student performance was collected. Teacher perceptions were recorded using a
blog, interviews, and a focus group, and students were interviewed. An inductive content analysis was conducted.
Teachers indicated that iPads
allowed students to learn more
outcomes,
be more engaged, and work independently. They could be more creative
in their teaching,
and stated the value of working
with other teachers. Students noted that iPads increased their enjoyment of learning. Specifically
for reading, students could
easily access pronunciations, definitions, and pictures, and the appearance of
the font could be altered. Communication was improved with particular apps and
the camera for pictures to share information.
Challenges faced by
teachers included locating subject-specific
apps
and high-interest low-level apps that were age
appropriate, as well as making time to sync the iPads and not
having their own iPads to use. They were
also frustrated that regular classroom teachers were reluctant to use iPads. Authors note the importance of purchasing a
sync cart or a site licence for apps, maintaining records of student progress,
and keeping abreast of new technology.
Edyburn, D. L. (2003). Learning
from text. Special Education Technology Practice, 24(1), 16–27.
Edyburn describes the challenges
faced by struggling readers in general education classrooms that require reading to learn, and discusses AT interventions that allow effective integration
of these students. He asks whether remediation or compensation is the best way
to serve struggling readers and notes that compensatory technology provides a
means of accessing text after school. He
provides both a systems approach for making text accessible and a taxonomy of text modification strategies that offer a
formalized roadmap for considering issues of educating students in the general
classroom.
Strategies suggested include:
·
bypassing
reading
altogether, which requires a person or the passage to be recorded for playback or
computer technology to read digital text,
·
decreasing
reading
by reducing the reading level using documents on the web or autosummary tools
in word,
·
supporting
reading
to enhance comprehension by using Google Images or multimedia dictionaries,
·
organizing
reading
with graphic organizers to show relationships among key ideas in text, which
could be accomplished in low tech format on paper or higher tech using Inspiration
software, and
·
guiding reading by teaching
reading strategies and providing study guides or websites that help students
through the reading by offering summaries of plots or characters, for instance.
Using AT to apply such reading
strategies is a move away from the one-size-fits-all classroom, and can make
the general curriculum cognitively accessible for struggling readers and
provide a balance between compensation and remediation.
Kurth, J. A. (2013). A unit-based approach to adaptations in inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(2), 34–43. doi:10.1177/1053451213509488
Kurth discusses adaptations based on UDL principles,
where teachers plan curriculum for diverse needs from the outset rather than initially
planning for one group and making adaptations for each student with special
needs afterwards. Use of general adaptations
that aid a variety of learners, such as graphic organizers, peer tutors, or
word banks, and additional
specific adaptations for a few students, ensure learning for all. As examples, the article refers to two students
with low-incidence disabilities (Amanda has an intellectual disability and John
is autistic), both working at a different grade level from their peers in
eighth-grade English class. An
ecological assessment as well as teacher observation and collaboration highlight
the difference between students’
skills and needs so that appropriate
yet unobtrusive adaptations can be created. Then teachers focus on supporting learning by
defining outcomes, ensuring that the classroom routine allows for participation
and learning, and identifying and gathering specific materials for lessons. Specific examples are provided in the
article. During and after instruction, both
the general and specific adaptations are evaluated to see if students were
actively engaged in their work, whether work was meaningful and individualized
curricular outcomes were addressed, and to ensure social engagement among
students and the development of confidence and self-advocacy skills.
Messinger-Willman, J., &
Marino, M. T. (2010). Universal design
for learning and assistive technology: leadership considerations for promoting inclusive
education in today's secondary schools. NASSP Bulletin, 94(1), 5–16. doi:10.1177/0192636510371977
This article
describes how UDL
and AT can “enhance educational opportunities for secondary
students with learning disabilities” (p. 5), as AT can remove learning barriers
for some students as an application of UDL principles. Reading is
identified as a significant challenge for LD students, with most reading at a
grade four or five level. AT can serve
as both a reading support and an intervention, aiding students as a low or high
tech device or software depending on the task the student must do and their
technology skill. For instance, highlighters, pencil grips, magnifying
glasses, or slant boards may suffice for some exercises, whereas
text-to-speech and word prediction software or digital text to
reduce reading level and focus on higher order thinking would be required for
others.
Barriers that prevent
teachers from choosing, implementing, and assessing AT devices in the classroom
are identified and solutions are discussed.
Lack of knowledge about the capabilities of AT is pervasive, but
knowledge is imperative for selecting, acquiring, implementing, and integrating
AT, so the authors state that more
training opportunities and teamwork when designing a student’s individualized education plan is
necessary. Other barriers including lack
of funding, information, and time are noted and action steps to eliminate the obstacles
are suggested.
RodrÃguez, C. D., Strnadová, I.,
& Cumming, T. (2014). Using iPads with students with disabilities: lessons learned from students, teachers, and parents. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(4), 244– 250. doi:10.1177/1053451213509488
This article reviews
research studies about use of mobile technologies such as iPads in special education,
finding that a variety of iPad features are beneficial to English language
learners and students with disabilities including autism, intellectual
disabilities, and ADHD. The devices increase learning opportunities,
particularly in literacy, because apps permit the individualization of
lessons. Student engagement is higher as well. Both parents and teachers noted that iPads
allow more student
independence, but also emphasize the importance of home-school communication
for student support when implementing assistive technology. Suggestions for integration of mobile
technologies are provided, and include ensuring adequate teacher training and
considering continued
access across environments for students. Teachers must plan for effective classroom
use and maintenance of the technology, and a graphic organizer to aid with this
is provided.
Zascavage,
V., & Winterman, K. G. (2009). What
middle school educators should know about assistive technology and universal design
for learning. Middle School Journal, 40(4), 46–52.
To
integrate students with disabilities into the regular classroom and allow them
autonomy there, the authors advocate the use
of AT to ensure a UDL curriculum.
Useful programs include speech recognition
software,
allowing students with handwriting or spelling challenges to dictate work, and
ultimately improving reading comprehension, spelling, and word recognition. The
only downfall of these programs is that background noise must be limited, so
students generally leave the classroom to work.
Text-to-speech technology allows students
to have documents or just particular words read aloud to them by the
computer. This aids word recognition and
decoding and therefore comprehension, especially in classes laden with
technical vocabulary. As long as the
teacher is organized and has electronic material for students to learn, this is
a great option for weak readers. Students
who are good readers but have difficulty spelling can use word prediction software or spell check
to aid in communicating their ideas.
Using word prediction with a text-to-speech program provides further
assistance. Finally, Inspiration is a UDL software package that allows
all students to organize their thoughts using pictures and concept maps,
focusing their attention and clarifying the purpose of their work. The authors suggest that an AT team should
exist at each school and that cost should not be considered a limiting factor
because technology is important for an appropriate education. They emphasize the classroom teacher’s role
in choosing technologies for each student, and suggest a useful focus question
to accomplish this goal: “What are the
student’s cognitive abilities and how will they interface with technology?” (p. 51). The technology can serve as a tool to allow
learners to realize their potential.
Comparison and Critique
While Kurth (2013)
focused on general and specific adaptations according to UDL principles but not
technology, all the other authors discussed AT and more specifically described
ways that AT could be used to support UDL. These authors acknowledged that AT is more
effective with disabled students: Cumming, Strnadova, and Singh (2014)
studied developmentally disabled students; Messinger-Willman and Marino (2010)
reported on learning disabled students, focusing on reading; and Edyburn (2003)
narrowed his focus to struggling readers.
Both RodrÃguez, Strnadová, and Cumming (2014) and Zascavage and
Winterman (2009) discussed AT use with a more general group of special
education students, with disabilities including autism,
intellectual disabilities, and ADHD noted by the former but no specific
disabled groups mentioned by the latter.
Only Cumming et al. and Kurth
reported directly on research or classroom activities, whereas the other authors
provided review pieces. The benefit of
research reports is that the reader views comments and findings first-hand,
perhaps allowing a more balanced or critical consideration of the subject being
studied, as more challenges were noted by Cumming et al. than the others. Nevertheless, findings verify statements made
by other authors. For example, Cumming
et al. noted that some teachers were reluctant to use iPads because of issues
with student access to the technology at home as well as at school. RodrÃguez et al. corroborated this concern,
stating the importance of continued access across environments. Generally, all authors stated that teachers
must be trained on the technology and plan for its effective implementation in
instruction, and that AT allows students to learn more, increase engagement,
and work independently.
The most helpful
articles for me offered specific examples about using iPads with students. Edyburn provided websites useful for remedial
and compensatory reading support, and others discussed the value of digital
text and text-to-speech and word prediction software (Messinger-Willman
& Marino; Zascavage & Winterman).
Personal Reflection
Two main ideas
resonated with me as I completed these readings. First, there is tremendous potential for AT
to increase student learning, particularly students with disabilities, in a UDL
environment. Of course, this is not new
because I have been thinking the same thing for the past ten weeks! The articles served to reiterate the variety
of accessibility options and relevant apps available with iPad technology. Second, teacher training is a necessary first
step for integration of mobile devices in the general education classroom. Ideally, each teacher would have their own
mobile device on which to learn, and there would be rich collaboration and
support amongst teachers sharing the common goal of incorporating AT to support
learners in their classes.
The readings have
caused me to reflect on my own personal teaching situation. I just received a transfer to another school
that does not block any websites, encourages students to bring their own
devices to class, and has a variety of assistive technology available at the
school. This is very different from the
school where I currently work. This
assignment and the class in general has given me great ideas that will no doubt
serve me well in the upcoming year, but I am also a bit nervous about the great
deal of work required to effectively implement technology in the classroom, as
evidenced by the diversity of AT tools noted in all the articles, but
specifically as described in the Cumming et al. article. The action research teachers worked many
hours to implement iPads. Further, the
challenges noted make me wary, particularly with regard to consistent access for
low socio-economic status students who might not have devices at home. Regardless, I look forward to the upcoming
challenge.