COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON? PART II ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Richard L. Swanby, Ph.D.
Dowling College, School of Education,
Idle Hour Blvd. Oakdale, New York 11769.
(516) 244 - 3298 (o) 589 - 5135 (h) 244 - 5036 (fax)
swanbyr@dowling.edu

Web Posted on: December 12, 1997

Deloughy (1996) Chronicle of Higher Education "Reaching a Critical Mass" suggests that technology on American college's campuses has increased sharply over the last 5 years. His study indicated that faculty over the last few years are using computer graphics, commercial software, CD-ROMS, World Wide Web, and the Internet for classroom demonstrations and presentations. Deloughy used Roger's 1962 "Diffusion of Innovation" to describe the increase of technology in Higher Education. Rogers (1962) described the spreading of innovation as a four part process starting with Innovators, moving to adapters, then into the majority population, and finally among the Laggards. Apparently Deloughy (1996) suggests that college facilities appear to be moving from the position of adapters to the majority population. This of course was demonstrated by his observation of faculty members using such "innovations" as computer graphics, commercial software, CD-ROMS, World Wide Web, and the Internet for classroom demonstrations and presentations.

Given Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation model and special education, can we identify the use of technology in our special education classrooms? Like Deloughy's (1996) study, the use of computers in special education can suggest that educators are moving to the "Critical Mass" in computer use?

This study surveyed 800 special educators and administrators which profiled computer and assistive technology use. Those identified variables such as computer and assistive technology awareness levels, hardware and software use, user knowledge level of computer and assistive technology use, training and utilization of computers and assistive technology as a teaching tool, subject area used, use of computers and assistive technology in selected settings and how computers and assistive technology was incorporated into the special education curriculum. The results of the data were compared to the stages of Todmen and Warners (1993) "Return On Investment" (ROI) staff development model.

Teachers' perceptions and knowledge regarding computer and assistive technologies impact the usage in the classroom and community. In order to determine teachers' attitudes, knowledge, and usage toward computer and assistive technology and it's effectiveness, teachers and administrators surveys have been was conducted over the last two years. The subjects in this study consisted of educators from various schools on Long Island and New York City including; regular and special education classrooms, elementary, middle schools, and high schools, self-contained classroom, special schools, pre-schools, and residential settings. Findings are presented using frequency distribution and mean squares with standard deviations scales to measure teachers' understanding of assistive technology and effectiveness to assist instruction in the classes for students with disabilities.

Computer Access

96% of the special education teachers surveyed had access to computers for instructional purposes. Those computers that were available for instructional purposes were 64% Apple computers, 13% IBM compatibles, 16% Macintosh, and 7% using others. Approximately 70 % of the special education teachers surveyed owned computers. More than 60% owned IBM compatible computers. 25% owned Apples or Macintosh computers while less than 15% are still using Commodores or other type of machines. Most computer training, 84%, appeared to have occurred within the first 5 years or within the last 10 to 13 years. 45% of those trained had not received further training. Those who owned their own computers used computer at home for: 64% of the time for word-processing, 15% of the time video games, 10% of the time for information gathering and 11% for instruction/personal finances/ Internet.

Special education teachers and administrators viewed of the impact of computer technology on learning very positively. 92% felt that computer technology could improve instruction. 92% also felt that computer technology enhanced a multisensory approach to instruction. 85% felt that computer technology improved the use of a wider range of subject matter. 82% felt that computer technology provided repetition, drill and practice in a meaningful way. 82% felt that computer technology provided methods for direct, individualized learning. 82% also felt that computer technology provided a meaningful avenue for student assessment. 76% indicated that the computer technology could be a useful tool for reading and writing students objectives for IEPs.

Whereas Special education teachers and administrators viewed of the impact of assistive technology on learning as unknown. 36% of the special educator teachers and administrators failed to respond to those questions that related to the questions to assistive technology. Of the remaining 64% responses relating to assistive technology, the analysis indicated that teachers who are instructing students with disabilities were not aware of the uses of assistive technology. The overall responses by educators who are instructing students with disabilities indicated that assistive technology were not used and were not well defined. Using teachers' perceptions of assistive technology in special education, it was determined that teachers view assistive technology as not within their understanding of computer terminology. 51% felt that assistive technology could improve instruction. 41% also felt that assistive technology enhanced a multisensory approach to instruction. 53% felt that assistive technology improved the use of a wider range of subject matter. 54% felt that assistive technology provided repetition, drill and practice in a meaningful way. 22% felt that assistive technology provided methods for direct, individualized learning. 46% also felt that assistive technology provided a meaningful avenue for student assessment. 29% indicated that the assistive technology could be a useful tool for reading and writing students objectives for IEPs.

Using the variables pre-service instruction and/or in-service training with classroom use, utilization of software and ownership, pre-service training appeared to have an impact upon such factors as those who were more likely to own their own computers. Of those who own their own computers, 73% received formal pre-service training. Where as, 62% of those who did not receive formal pre-service training did not own computers. Formal pre-service training was considered to be a class in computer use. Yet, in- services training appeared to not have an impact on ownership.

Of those surveyed only 26% used computers for instructional purposes on a daily basis, while 51% used computers on a weekly basis, and 13% never used computers in the classroom. According to the survey, computer use in the classroom appeared to be greatly influenced by familiarity of software being used and availability of computers in the classroom. In rank order drill and practice software, including word processing, was considered most often used, second most often used was tutorial software, followed by problem solving software, demonstration software, simulations software, and programming. Those areas of instruction in rank order were; math, reading, social studies, science, and social skills development. Finally, those special education teachers as related to placement viewed and used computer assistive technology comparably. Placement in self-contained, resource room, mainstreamed, and teachers in inclusionary settings all viewed computer the same.

The results of this study suggests that computer use may have or closely reaching Rogers (1962) level of "Critical Mass". With ownership at approximately 70% and computer access at 96% strongly support the Critical Mass concept. Access, classroom use, ownership, personal use and software familiarity strongly points to the majority of special education teachers have and/or use computer technology. However, the use of technology appears to relate closely to personnel computing and has not translated to instructional use. Those skills that support personal use by special education teachers use and often teach word- processing with video games and drill and practice ranking second, suggesting that special education teachers use and teach what they know. Technology use reflects a personal pedagogical process or pre- service training model.

This may also suggests that computer and assistive technology training needs to examined as a continuum or hierarchy of competencies. To best serve special education teachers on the practices for computer and assistive technology, an examination of personal to instructional to assistive technologies competencies need to identified and institutionally accepted.

Pre-service courses often address those personal skills needed to enhance computer use. However, many in-service models lack institutional purpose, an established awareness level, or knowledge of the participants abilities, In-services training often lack consistency, i.e. 84%, within the first 5 years or 45% within the last 10 to 13 years suggests gaps and lack of direction. This points out five year lag among many special education teachers. Technology has changed, instructional competencies have change.

Sheingold and Hardly, (1990) listed word processing or drill and practice as most used, followed by instructional software, programming, simulations, telecommunication and multimedia. While rank and order now have changed. Drill and practice software, including word processing, was considered most often used, second most often used was tutorial software, followed by problem solving software, demonstration software, simulations software, and programming. Special education teachers appear to have been acquainted with educational packets that support educational skills and learning. Programming has quickly losing favor while telecommunications i.e. Internet and the Web have become popular and should become more popular.

Like our students in special education, not all teachers who are attempting to use technology come in with same skills. And like our students learning is based on prior knowledge and requires direction and individual competencies. This becomes very apparent when surveying special education teachers awareness and knowledge level for assistive technology. With 36% unable to even identify the concept of assistive technology suggests that many organizations and institutions do not even recognize the need for "meaningful change". While special education teachers viewed of the impact of computer technology on learning very positively, the overall response indicated that assistive technology were not used and were not well defined.

Computers in the special education classroom has according to Deloughy (1996) Chronicle of Higher Education suggests that teachers are reaching a Critical Mass. However, the use of computers and assistive technology are directly related to the level of training and usage by the teacher. The information from the surveys strongly support the use of Carl and Zabala (1996); Todmen and Warners (1993) "Return On Investment" (ROI) as a staff development model for the following reasons:

• 1. Educational institutions and special education teachers are committed to and use computer technology in their every day use and in their classroom.
• 1. Educational institutions and special education teachers have articulated an institutional goal or aim. Educational institutions have stated that teachers will become "Computer Literate".
• 2. Educational institutions and special education teachers use those skill that often taught within pre- service training, i.e. word-processing and drill and practice. (Sheingold and Hadly, 1990; Laine, Sandals, and Hughes, 1996)
• 3. Educational institutions and special education teachers have not, however, articulated institutional goals or aims for instructional computing or assistive technology.
• 4. Special Education teachers are not aware and do not use assistive technology in the classroom.

Like the students that we teach, educational institutions have clearly stated and identified those skills needed to become "Computer Literate". Teachers and administrators have acquired those personal skills to become computer literate. Word-processing, video games, information gathering and instruction/personal finances/ Internet use identify personal computing skills. However, educational institutions have not articulated an institutional change as related to the use of assistive technology in the classroom. This may due to two possible reasons.

• (1) The lack of knowledge as related to assistive technology, or
• (2) Administrators not wanting commit to change as related to assistive technology due to possible unknown costs.

Because of the lack of institutional commitment most special education teachers lack those identified skills needed to translate those personal computing skills for the enhancement of learning to assistive technology.

Deloughy, T. J. 1996. Reaching a critical mass. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/30, 1,20.

Carl, D. & Zabala J 1996. Making the right connections! Assistive technology staff development for system change. Technology and Media Conference, March.

Laine, Sandals, & Hughes, 1996. Computer application for special needs students: What Canadian teachers use and need. The View Finder: International Perspective on Special Education Technology.

Council for Exceptional Children, Technology and Media Division. Vol. 3. Roger, 1962. The diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Sheingold, K. & Hadly, M. 1990. Accomplished Teachers: Integrating computer into classroom practice.

New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education.

Todmen, G. & Warners, M. P. 1993. Using ROI to assess staff development efforts. Journal of Staff Development 14, (3).

5
10