Abstract
This article provides an overview of the literature on special education law and policy and teacher preparation for special education technology use and identifies current issues, focusing on four key obstacles regarding the status of special education technology access and implementation: (a) the mismatch between legal requirements, policy recommendations, and the supports students with disabilities actually receive in schools; (b) the limited professional knowledge about special education technology and few meaningful options for making improvements to this professional body of knowledge; (c) the rapid pace of innovation in terms of availability of new apps, products, and hardware; and (d) the inherent conflicts between the commercial nature of special education technology and best special education technology practice. Recommendations, resources, and actionable ideas toward transformative change are shared with hopes for equitable and meaningful special education technology access and implementation for students with disabilities.
Keywords
Technology innovation has risen sharply over the past few decades, and may seem like a powerful wave that is challenging for special education educators to catch, or at least stay abreast of. Certainly, the design and development of technology is innovating at an exponential rate (Bloomberg, 2015). It is ever present in today’s schools, and many stakeholders in education look to technology as a solution for many of the challenges that teachers face (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology [USDOE-OET], 2017). However, technology is not a panacea for solving the substantial issues that professionals grapple with on behalf of students with disabilities (Kennedy & Boyle, 2017). Special education professionals have a responsibility to learn how, why, when, and for whom various tools and products work, and under what conditions. Special educators must be savvy users of special education technology to avoid causing unintentional educational harm.
The field of special education technology is guided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004) in conjunction with additional legal mandates that prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities, including issues of access (see Table 1). Professional organizations set standards and offer guidelines for technology training and implementation (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]). Practitioners also need to follow guidance and policies laid out by both federal and state departments of education, and other associated special education advocacy organizations.
Federal Legislation With Implications for Special Education Technology.
Special education technology includes (a) assistive technology (AT), (b) accessible educational or instructional materials (AEM), and (c) educational or instructional technologies (ET). Assistive technology is defined by IDEA (2004, section 300.5) as “any item, piece of equipment or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of children with disabilities.” Furthermore, AT services are defined as “any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device.”
Accessible educational materials are defined by the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials, n.d.) as “print- and technology-based educational materials, including printed and electronic textbooks and related core materials that are designed or enhanced in a way that makes them usable across the widest range of learner variability, regardless of format (e.g., print, digital, graphic, audio, video).” Educational technology is defined as “the study and ethical application of theory, research, and best practices to advance knowledge as well as mediate and improve learning and performance through the strategic design, management and implementation of learning and instructional processes and resources” (Richey, Silber & Ely, 2008). AEM and ET should be used to support positive learning outcomes for students with disabilities. These definitions are central to special education technology law and policy.
People, including schoolchildren, with print disabilities have legal entitlements to AEM. Print disabilities include blindness, visual disabilities, physical limitations, and reading disabilities. Unlike AT and AEM, no legal mandates exist for the provision of ET for students with disabilities. However, general policies relevant for all students also have relevance for students with disabilities, and ISTE provides standards of implementation. Furthermore, USDOE-OET intermittently publishes a National Educational Technology Plan to provide information about the current status of ET and to make recommendations for implementation and research agendas (https://tech.ed.gov/netp/). The National Educational Technology Plan provides a vision for teaching and research, including technology to support students with disabilities.
Recently released by the CEC, a set of high-leverage practices (HLP) (McLeskey et al., 2017) includes recommendations for teacher competencies with AT. A total of 22 HLPs have been identified as most effective for serving students with disabilities across the four categories of collaboration, assessment, social/emotional/behavioral, and instruction. Assistive technology guidance is provided in HLP 11 under the category of instruction (McLeskey et al., 2017, p. 24). Although law and policy supply mandates and guidance for special education technology provision for students with disabilities, barriers exist that make implementation challenging.
Persistent Issues in Special Education Technology
This article highlights four key obstacles that stand in the way of educational professionals using technology as an accessibility feature, or an assistive or instructional support to produce positive academic outcomes for students with disabilities in grades pre-K to 12.
The mismatch between legal requirements and policy recommendations in contrast to the supports students with disabilities actually receive in schools
The limited professional knowledge about special education technology paired with few meaningful options for making improvements to this professional body of knowledge
The rapid pace of innovation in terms of availability of new apps, products, and hardware
The inherent conflicts between the commercial nature of special education technology, special education technology research, and implementing best special education technology practice
This article provides a brief overview of each issue, highlighting evidence-based practices and actionable ideas, including available resources educational professionals can make part of their immediate repertoire of practice.
Lack of Access
Students with high-incidence disabilities, including learning disabilities (LD), emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and high-functioning autism (HFA), do not receive access to AT at the same rates as peers with moderate and severe disabilities (Quinn et al., 2009). Furthermore, students in rural schools have less access than their urban and suburban peers (T. N. Davis, Barnard-Brak, & Arredondo, 2013). In spite of legal requirements for provision, many students are without technology supports they are entitled to receive, evidencing a lack of educational equity, reduced access to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), more restrictive placements, and fewer opportunities for advanced learning (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). However, this underservicing or omission may be unintentional.
Limited Teacher Readiness
Not all institutes of higher education, school districts, or schools have access to special education technology experts who can provide high-quality training (Judge & O’Bannon, 2008). At the preservice level, special education teacher candidates need outstanding opportunities to develop background knowledge, see special education technology modeled, and practice using special education technology with expert and peer feedback (Judge & O’Bannon, 2008). In-service teachers also benefit from professional development opportunities supported by communities of practice (Zorfass & Rivero, 2005). Furthermore, even special education technology experts may struggle to keep up with the rate of innovation.
The Special Education Technology Wave
Technology innovates at a very rapid pace, causing disruptions, rapidly churning out new products, apps, hardware, and other solutions for a range of purposes (Bloomberg, 2015). Attempting to keep pace with new developments, emerging research, and, frankly, really cool innovation can be overwhelming. Special educators may be left wondering which, if any, of the new products should be adopted for use with students with disabilities. Along with knowledge and skills about special education technology, teachers need to know how to make special education technology decisions that will lead to better support for their students (Schmidt, Lin, Paek, MacSuga-Gage, & Gage, 2016). Along with rapid change, the commercial aspect of educational technology can make special education technology decision making challenging and complex.
A Conflict of Interest
One challenge regarding the commercial aspect of special education technology is that technology developers appear to have little incentive to subject their products to rigorous empirical testing for the purposes and populations they claim to benefit (A. Davis, 2017; Torres, 2018). USDOE-OET (2015) offers guidance for developers that stresses the importance of considering the diversity of end users during the innovation and development process, especially with respect to people with disabilities. While companies within the educational technology sector are running businesses, developers in the space of special education technology have an ethical responsibility to consider the needs of people with disabilities (A. Davis, 2017; Torres, 2018).
If consumers will buy a product (and they do) that has not been validated by supporting empirical research for special education technology purposes, why allow an independent research team to field test and possibly conclude the product is ineffective? “A cumulative body of research about the major purposes of technology implementations is missing-in-action but many implementers ignore that since buying high-tech devices allows them to be seen as technologically innovative and forward-thinking” (Levin, Cuban, Dede, & Kleiman, 2012, p. 2). Some developers do offer trial subscriptions or limited use that allow special educators to test the technology for fit, but this is not always the case. Unfortunately, more often than not, untested special education technology ends up in the hands of practitioners and students with disabilities (Edyburn, 2013). Additionally, there is a lack of uniform terminology adopted by vendors regarding accessibility features (Shyyan, Thurlow, Larson, Christensen, & Lazarus, 2016), which makes it hard to understand what a technology may be expected to do. Furthermore, as many states contract with vendors for computer-based assessment platforms, teachers and students may experience unfamiliar and incompatible technology interfaces and differing features during a critical event such as performance on a state assessment. In some cases, the technology that may be intended to improve assessment access can serve as a barrier instead (Häkkinen, 2015). Yet, because technology innovates so rapidly, research lags behind practice (Gersten & Edyburn, 2007: Levin et al., 2012). It is possible that we may never fully catch the special education technology wave.
Recommendations, Actionable Ideas, and Resources
It is always possible to improve knowledge and skills for serving students with disabilities. There are additional responsibilities for special education technology users to comply with law and policy and to learn about and adopt new technologies as they develop. In this section, recommendations and actionable ideas are presented. Tables 2, 3, and 4 offer lists of resources that share information, skill-building opportunities, and access to professional learning communities for AT, AEM, ET.
Assistive Technology Resources for Special Education Technology.
Accessible Educational Materials Resources for Special Education Technology.
Educational Technology and Learning Theory Resources for Special Education Technology.
Comply With Law and Policy
“Research, policy and practice don’t always ‘play well together’” (Levin et al., 2012, p. 2). The responsibility to comply falls upon educators and developers. All students who are entitled to special education technology access should receive it as prescribed, and special education professionals must learn to facilitate this access. Given the depth, breadth, and potential of current special education technologies (Courtad & Bouck, 2012, 2013; LoPresti, Bodine, & Lewis, 2008; Virnes, Kärnä, & Vellonen, 2015), most students with high-incidence disabilities will benefit from access to AT and AEM access. Furthermore, for reasons of access to the general curriculum and educational equity, students with disabilities should also be offered plentiful and meaningful opportunities to learn via ET. Developers too must consider all end users, including those with disabilities (USDOE-OET, 2015; Lazar, Goldstein, & Taylor, 2015). Designing for accessibility does require a knowledge base and skill set, but apparently it is approachable once developers attend to users’ needs.
Access Professional Development
Second, there is a documented need for professional development for teacher educators, teachers, and other stakeholders who will be responsible for special education technology decision making, implementation, and evaluation (Judge & O’Bannon, 2008). Accessing professional development for teacher educators, preservice, and in-service teachers is critical to readiness to serve students with disabilities (Van Laarhoven, Munk, Chandler, Zurita, & Lynch, 2012).
The role of teacher education
Expert implementation of special education technology is driven by a deep knowledge of content and strong pedagogy (Brownell et al., 2009). To prepare future special educators to use special education technology in expert ways, special education teacher education faculty should have a foundational knowledge of technology learning theory (e.g., TPACK [Mishra & Koehler, 2006]; multimedia learning theory [Mayer, 2011]), be familiar with special education technology law and policy, and be able to use this knowledge to integrate special education technology into methods and clinical coursework for future special educators (Marino, Sameshima, & Beecher, 2009). Teacher educators should familiarize future teachers with online and local resources for continued learning and support the development of communities of practice around special education technology (Zorfass & Rivero, 2005). Teachers also should be supported in the development of knowledge and skills for self-directed learning (Louws, Meirink, van Veen, & van Driel, 2017).
Self-directed professional development
Self-directed learning is the process of diagnosing personal needs and setting goals, identifying needed resources for learning, developing learning strategies, and evaluating outcomes (Louws et al., 2017). Technology, with its ability to provide easy access to a wide range of resources, enabling self-paced learning and a focus on learner needs and preferences, is a powerful self-directed learning tool (Saxena, 2013). For special education technology, ET enables access to experts (Dede, Jass Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, & McCloskey, 2009) and technology-specific technical assistance centers and professional organizations. These resources (a) provide opportunities for the development of content knowledge through learning modules, case study, and information briefs, (b) support skill development through video models, and (c) support development of and access to online communities of practice for support. Technology for personal learning fosters teacher choice and teacher leadership. Furthermore, teachers who collect regular and meaningful data on students make better instructional decisions and achieve improved student outcomes (Deno, 2003).
Use Data to Address Research Limitations
For special education technology, data are especially important given the significant limitations of the special education technology research base (Gersten & Edyburn, 2007; Levin et al., 2012) and the rate of innovation (Bloomberg, 2015). To gather useful data, first, at the IEP meeting, eligible students should be screened for AT and AEM needs (Satterfield, 2016). Screening measures such as the SETT framework focus on the student, environment, task, and tools (Zavala, 2019). In other cases, the diagnosis might suggest the need for technology. For example, for a student with a print disability, AEM should be an automatic consideration (IDEA, 2004). For a student with a high-incidence disability who reads and writes below grade level, AT that offers features such as text-to-speech, highlighting, note taking, a talking phonetic dictionary, and word prediction should considered and evaluated (Courtad & Bouck, 2012, 2013; Virnes et al., 2015). Baseline data that document the student’s current performance without technology should be reviewed and/or collected to establish need (Wissick & Gardner, 2008). Such data might include results from state testing, the multidisciplinary assessment, and/or progress monitoring by the teacher (Wissick & Gardner, 2008). Then, technology should be selected to address the individual student’s functional and/or learning needs and to meet specific objectives. Next, the student’s performance should be evaluated with and without technology (Parette, Peterson-Karlan, Smith, Gray, & Silver-Pacuilla, 2006).
Measurable outcomes given special education technology access might include differences in function, participation, and satisfaction, not just changes in academic or behavioral performance (Edyburn & Smith, 2004). Finally, those contributions to quality of life and social validity are important (Jutai, Fuhrer, Demers, Scherer, & DeRuyter, 2005). Students with disabilities should have equitable access to the curriculum, equipped with appropriate and current tools that are nonstigmatizing (Satterfield, 2016). There is much still to learn about measuring technology outcomes (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010), but screening, gathering baseline data, and monitoring progress performance is a good start. Once need is established, matching AT, AEM, and/or ET follows.
Select Evidence-Based Practices
In this section, a few specific technologies are recommended that have sufficient evidence to render them useful for teacher development and for students with high-incidence disabilities. These and all recommendations should be combined with good clinical judgment and data to demonstrate if these tools function in a specific context, for a specific student.
Technologies for students with high-incidence disabilities
Some applications of special education technology meet the needs of many students with high-incidence disabilities. Challenges with reading, social learning, and self-regulation are often common characteristics across the categories of LD, ADHD, EBD, and ASD. Technology-based reading supports meet many needs (Courtad & Bouck, 2012, 2013; Virnes et al., 2015), and good text-to-speech platforms may have many functional features, even those that are free or can be purchased at a low cost. A few products that may help any struggling reader include Natural Reader (http://www.naturalreaders.com) and Voice Dream Reader (http://www.voicedream.com). Such platforms may offer features such as customizable voices, language translation, synchronized highlighting, and the abilities to pause, relisten, speed up or slow down, take notes, and sync with other devices. These products fall in the category of AT and AEM.
A second recommendation that meets many students’ needs and has been studied for students with high-incidence disabilities is the use of video modeling (Losinski, Wiseman, White, & Balluch, 2016; McCoy, Holloway, Healy, Rispoli, & Neely, 2016). Video modeling allows students to see others or themselves performing a task successfully and provide a readily accessible model for learning. Videos may be commercially made, accessed online through avenues such as YouTube and Vimeo, or teacher/student developed for the specific individual purpose. Video modeling often supports social learning and falls in the category of ET.
A third recommendation relates to the use of technology to support executive function skills (Center on Technology and Disability, 2016). Many students with high-incidence disabilities struggle with self-regulation of behavior, task completion, attention, and academic performance (Cook, Rao, & Collins, 2017; LoPresti et al., 2008). A visual timer such as Time Timer (https://www.timetimer.com) can support students with autism during transitions. First Then Visual Schedule is another app that helps children to anticipate upcoming events and plan accordingly (https://itunes.apple.com). Timewinder (https://www.intervaltimewinder.com) is an interval timer that can set alerts for individual tasks. Devices such as Watch Minder (http://www.watchminder.com) can help students with attentional issues develop self-awareness of being on-task. An app such as 30/30 supports task management and teaches students to take functional breaks (http://3030.binaryhammer.com). Google Calendar and Wunderlist (https://www.wunderlist.com) can support longer range planning for homework and projects. These technologies may be AT or ET.
Identify funding sources
Finally, one common reason that students with high-incidence disabilities remain un- and underserved by special education technology is related to access to funding (Marino et al., 2009). Identifying funding sources and advocating for access to needed technologies is an important role for teachers, parents, and other stakeholders (Reynolds, Gray, & Ruedel, 2015).
Conclusion
Special education technology presents the exciting potential to support the needs of students with disabilities. In order to meet the letter and spirit of the law and to improve outcomes for student with disabilities, special educators, including those in higher education along with teachers in the field who directly make instructional decisions, need solid knowledge about special education technology. This is especially important as students with high-incidence disabilities and those in rural settings may be unserved or underserved (T. N. Davis et al., 2013). To ride the special education technology wave, special educators must have a firm understanding of the interaction between students’ individualized needs, the curriculum, the task demands, the local context, and available pedagogies (technology based or not).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.