Implementing Project SIED

Abstract

The worldwide explosion in popularity of mobile devices has created a dramatic increase in mobile software (apps) that are quick and easy to find and install, cheap, disposable, and usually single purpose. Hence, teachers need an equally streamlined and simplified decision-making process to help them identify educational apps—an approach that differs from traditional technology decision-making approaches that are cumbersome and require significant time, resources, and effort. Project Software Identification and Evaluation for Decision-Making (SIED) attempts to fill this gap. In this article, we describe Project SIED, how we designed a series of professional development workshops for in-service special education teachers based on Project SIED, and the evaluation outcomes of the workshops. Results suggest that workshops were successful from in-service special education teachers’ self-reported confidence and comfort levels. Limitations and future plans are discussed.

Keywords

app era mobile apps mobile learning special education decision-making process app rubric

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

(2010). Action research. In Salkind

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 4–9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blume

(2013, 8 27). LAUSD launches its drive to equip every student with iPads. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-lausd-ipads-20130828-story.html

Blume

(2015, 4 16). L. A. school district demands iPad refund from Apple. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ipad-curriculum-refund-20150415-story.html#page=1

Brandon

(2011, 3 9). Is the iPad a “miracle device” for autism? FoxNews.com. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/09/can-apple-ipad-cure-autism/

Buabeng-Andoh

(2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 8, 136.

Cochrane

T. D.

(2010). Exploring mobile learning success factors. Research in Learning Technology, 18, 133–148.

Cocotas

(2012, 8 30). How people find apps. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-how-people-find-apps-2012-8

Cuban

(2009). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cumming

Rodríguez

C. D.

Strnadová

(2013). Aligning iPad applications with evidence-based practices in inclusive and special education. In Khosrow-Pour

(Ed.), Assistive technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 397–420). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

10.

Cumming

Stradnová

(2012). The iPad as a pedagogical tool in special education: Promises and possibilities. Special Education Perspectives, 21, 34–46.

11.

Douglas

K. H.

Wojcik

B. W.

Thompson

J. R.

(2012). Is there an app for that? Journal of Special Education Technology, 27, 59–70.

12.

Edyburn

D. L.

(2001). Models, theories, and frameworks: Contributions to understanding special education technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 4, 16–24.

13.

Elias

(2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12, 143–156.

14.

Fernández-López

Á.

Rodríguez-Fórtiz

M. J.

Rodríguez-Almendros

M. L.

Martínez-Segura

M. J.

(2013). Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to support students with special education needs. Computers & Education, 61, 77–90.

15.

Green

L. S.

Hechter

R. P.

Tysinger

P. D.

Chassereau

K. D.

(2014). Mobile app selection for 5th through 12th grade science: The development of the MASS rubric. Computers & Education, 75, 65–71. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.007

16.

Gustafson

K. L.

Branch

R. M.

(1997). Survey of instructional development models. Syracuse, NY: Information Resources Publications, Syracuse University.

17.

Hwang

G.-J.

Tsai

C.-C.

(2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, E65–E70. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x

18.

Kagohara

D. M.

van der Meer

Ramdoss

O’Reilly

M. F.

Lancioni

G. E.

Davis

T. N.

… Sigafoos

(2013). Using iPods^® and iPads^® in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147–156.

19.

Klein

(2015). The state of app discovery in 2015. TUNE. Retrieved from http://in.tune.com/l/23402/2015-06-03/2l83kt/23402/70698/TUNE_15Q2_055022AppDiscoveryWP_v2__2_.pdf

20.

Kopcha

T. J.

(2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59, 1109–1121.

21.

Kucher

(2012, 4 29). SD unified rolls out iPads in a big way. U-T San Diego. Retrieved from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/29/sd-unified-rolls-out-ipads-in-a-big-way/

22.

Lowendahl

J.-M.

(2013, 7 25). Hype cycle for education, 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from https://www.gartner.com/doc/2559615/hype-cycle-education-

23.

MacSuga-Gage

Schmidt

McNiff

Gage

Schmidt

(2015). Is there an app for that? A model to help PK-12 school-based professionals identify, implement, and evaluate technology. Beyond Behavior, 24, 2–13.

24.

McNiff

Whitehead

(2011). All you need to know about action research. Thousand Hills, CA: Sage.

25.

Mills

G. E.

(2010). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

26.

Morrison

G. R.

Ross

S. M.

Kemp

J. E.

Kalman

(2010). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Newton

D. A.

Dell

A. G.

(2011). Mobile devices and students with disabilities: What do best practices tell us? Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 47–49.

28.

Pogue

(2011). Critical mass. Scientific American, 304, 36–36.

29.

Reiser

R. A.

(2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 57–67.

30.

Sauers

N. J.

McLeod

(2012). What does the research say about school one-to-one computing initiatives. Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education, University of Kentucky. Retrieved from http://www.natickps.org/castlebrief01_laptopprograms.pdf

31.

Schmidt

Gage

Schmidt

MacSuga-Gage

(2013). Software Identification and Evaluation Decision-Making for Special Education: Project SIED. Presented at the 2013 Council for Exceptional Children Annual Convention and Expo, San Antonio: TX.

32.

Smaldino

S. E.

Lowther

D. L.

Russell

J. D.

(2012). Instructional technology and media for learning (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

33.

Statista.com. (2015, 7). Number of apps available in leading app stores as of July 2015. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/

34.

Tiongson

(2015, 5). Mobile app marketing insights: How consumers really find and use your apps. Retrieved from https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/mobile-app-marketing-insights.html

35.

Walker

(2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of apps for mobile devices. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 59.

36.

Weng

P.-L.

Taber-Doughty

(2015). Developing an app evaluation rubric for practitioners in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30, 43–58.

37.

West

J. H.

Hall

P. C.

Hanson

C. L.

Barnes

M. D.

Giraud-Carrier

Barrett

(2012). There’s an app for that: Content analysis of paid health and fitness apps. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, e72. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1977

38.

W.-H.

Jim Wu

Y.-C.

Chen

C.-Y.

Kao

H.-Y.

Lin

C.-H.

Huang

S.-H.

(2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59, 817–827. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016

39.

Zabala

(1995). The SETT framework: Critical areas to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED381962

40.

Zabala

(2005a). Ready, SETT, go! Getting started with the SETT framework. Closing the Gap, 23, 1–3.

41.

Zabala

(2005b). Using the SETT framework to level the learning field for students with disabilities. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://www.uvm.edu/∼cdci/AIM/implementation/SETT.html

42.

Zabala

(2010). The SETT framework: Straight from the horse’s mouth [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.joyzabala.com/uploads/CA_Kananaskis__SETT_Horses_Mouth.pdf

43.

Zhao

Pugh

Sheldon

Byers

(2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. The Teachers College Record, 104, 482–515.