Perceptions of Assistive Technology by Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments in Jordan

Abstract

Introduction:

Ethical practices and technology are current trends in education for individuals with disabilities. This study investigates the perceptions of assistive technology expressed by teachers of students with visual impairments (i.e., blindness or low vision) in Jordan.

Methods:

The research involved 20 teachers. Data were collected via semistructured interviews and analysis carried out via the constant-comparative method.

Results:

The results highlight the challenges that teachers perceive in using assistive technology with their students, particularly regarding computer use, the willingness of a child to use a particular device, the lack of such technologies in schools and in the home, and a lack of training in the home. The results highlight perceived external barriers to the effective use of assistive technology, including those related to finance, training, societal attitudes, and family support. It appears that assistive technology can also have negative effects, which can be considered an ethical issue, since such technologies can expose students with visual impairments to negative community attitudes, addiction, bullying, abuse, and extremism.

Discussion:

Teachers highlight the issues they experience in using assistive technology with students with visual impairments in Jordan, which can be explained by the contextual conditions in the country.

Implications for practitioners:

Decision-makers in the field of visual impairment need to consider these issues through providing professional development, addressing financial barriers, and conducting awareness programs for students regarding the effective use of assistive technology.

Keywords

assistive technology perceptions visual impairment blindness low vision ethical considerations curriculum

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajuwon

P. M.

Meeks

M. K.

Griffin-Shirley

Okungu

P. A.

(2016). Reflections of teachers of visually impaired students on their assistive technology competencies. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 110(2), 128.

Al-Rousan

(2013). Issues and problems in special education. Dar Al-Fikr.

Alves

C. C.

Monteiro

G. B

Rabello

Gasparetto

M. E.

de Carvalho

K. M.

(2009). Assistive technology applied to education of students with visual impairment. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 26(2), 148–152.

Al-Zboon

(2016). Kindergarten curriculum for children with hearing impairments: Jordanian teachers’ perspectives. Deafness & Education International, 18(1), 38–46.

Al-Zboon

(2017a). Combating substance misuse: Competences and preparation of special education department students. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-016-0086-x

Al-Zboon

(2017b). Current state of the curriculum in Jordanian kindergartens for children with hearing impairments. Early Child Development and Care. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/03004430.2016.1230737

Al-Zboon

(2019). Assistive technologies as a curriculum component in Jordan: Future special education teachers’ preparation and the field status. Assistive Technology Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2019.1677804

Assistive Technology Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–394, 112 Stat. 3627, S. 2432 (1998, November 13).

Baby

(1992). Curriculum applications in special education computing. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1), 5.

10.

Chen

Mann

W. C.

Tomita

Nochajski

(2000). Caregiver involvement in the use of assistive devices by frail older persons. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 179.

11.

Cook

A. M.

Polgar

J. M.

(2008). Cook and Hussey’s assistive technologies: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Elsevier.

12.

Creswell

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.

13.

Department of Statistics. (2015). The state of disability in Jordan. http://dosweb.dos.gov.jo/

14.

European Parliamentary Research Service. (2018). Assistive technologies for people with disabilities: Part II: Current and emerging technologies. European Parliamentary Research Service.

15.

Frytak

(2000). Assessment of quality of life in older adults. In Kane

R. L.

Kane

R. A.

(Eds.), Assessing older persons: Measures, meaning, and practical applications (pp. 200–236). Oxford University Press.

16.

Hasselbring

T. S.

Glaser

C. H.

(2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The future of children. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 102–122.

17.

Holloway

Todres

(2006). Grounded theory. In Gerrish

Lacey

(Eds.), The research process in nursing (pp. 192–207). Blackwell Publishing.

18.

Jackson

R. M.

(2004). Technologies supporting curriculum access for students with disabilities. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.

19.

Kelly

Smith

(2011). The impact of assistive technology on the educational performance of students with visual impairments: A synthesis of the research. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(2), 73–83.

20.

Kitchner

K. S.

(2000). Foundations of ethical practice, research, and teaching in psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

21.

McCulloch

(2004). Assistive technology: A special education guide to assistive technology. Montana Office of Public Instruction (pp. 1–37).

22.

Ministry of Education (MOE) (2013). Education Reform for Knowledge Economy Second Phase (ERfKE II). AnnualNarrative Report; MOE, Development Coordination Unit.

23.

Ministry of Education (MOE) (2018). National standards of occupational development of teachers.

24.

Minnesota Department of Children and Families Learning (2003). Minnesota assistive technology manual. https://www.pacer.org/webinars/atintheiep/MN-AT-Manual.pdf

25.

O’Brolcháin

(2018). Autonomy benefits and risks of assistive technologies for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 296.

26.

Parette

Scherer

(2004). Assistive technology use and stigma. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(3), 217–226.

27.

Richey

R. C.

(2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the field. Technology Trends, 52(1), 24–25.

28.

Sableski

(2000). Augmentative communication devices in the classroom and community. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 1(3), 1–8.

29.

Silvers

(1995). Reconciling equality to difference: Caring (F) or justice for people with disabilities. Hypatia, 10(1), 30–55.

30.

Siu

Morash

(2014). Teachers of students with visual impairments and their use of assistive technology: Measuring the proficiency of teachers and their identification with a community of practice. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 108, 384–398.

31.

Steel

E. J. A.

De Witte

L. P.

(2011). Advances in European assistive technology service delivery and recommendations for further improvement. Technology and Disability, 23(3), 131–138.

32.

United Nations. (2017). Voluntary national review 2017; Jordan. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/jordan

33.

Wojcik

B. W.

Douglas

K. H.

(2012). Illinois assistive technology guidance manual. SEAT Center, Special Education Assistive Technology, Illinois State University.

34.

Zhou

Parker

Smith

Griffin-Shirley

(2011). Assistive technology for students with visual impairments: Challenges and needs in teachers’ preparation programs and practice. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(4), 197–210.