Use of Educational Technology in Special Education: Perceptions of Teachers

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 189 - 205, 01.12.2019

Kursat Cagıltay , Hasan Cakır , Necdet Karasu , Omer Faruk Islım , Filiz Cıcek

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.21.6.2

Cited By: 16

Öz

The purpose of this study is to understand opinions, experiences, and perceptions of special education teachers with educational technologies. This study is a part of a larger project that targets developing instructional materials for students with special needs, their teachers and parents. Needs analysis was conducted to understand the current situation. Participants were 27 teachers in 6 different schools from Ankara, Turkey. The data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analyzed by taking content analysis approach. The results indicated that teachers’ use of technology for instructional purposes was very limited due to lack of infrastructure and appropriate material. Teachers believe that technology use in classroom improves quality of educational outcomes and job satisfaction. In relation to learning new technologies for educational use, teachers do not feel obligation to learn new technologies unless it becomes a necessity. Moreover, there is a large potential to develop materials in special education field with new technologies. Along with developing materials for students using bodily movement detection, touch screen, and smart toys technologies, it is also necessary to train teachers how to use them in classroom and to train parents to continue student’s education at home. Materials could support teachers while teaching self-care skills, social skills, and cognitive concepts. Moreover, they help students to reinforce and transfer these skills and knowledge to new contexts by providing many practice-feedback and variety of real contexts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkey, Education, Teaching materials, Disabled education

Destekleyen Kurum

The Scientific and Technological Research Council Of Turkey (TUBITAK).

Proje Numarası

111K394

Kaynakça

• Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300.
• Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45–63.
• Bender, W. N. (2008). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
• Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.
• Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22–43.
• Carter, M. V., & Center, S. E. (2005). Using PLATO with Students with Disabilities. Retrieved July, 30, 2017 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.7716&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration?. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75.
• Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2002). Cognitive styles and hypermedia navigation: Development of a learning model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science And Technology, 53(1), 3–15.
• Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 198-215.
• Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322–349.
• Edyburn, D. L. (2001). Critical issues in special education technology research: What do we know? What do we need to know? Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 15, 95–117.
• Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 7-24.
• Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
• Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
• Farrell, I. H., & Moore, D. M. (2000). The effect of navigation tools on learners’ achievement and attitude in a hypermedia environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 29(2), 169–181.
• Findlater, L., Froehlich, J. E., Fattal, K., Wobbrock, J. O., & Dastyar, T. (2013, April). Age-related differences in performance with touchscreens compared to traditional mouse input. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 343-346). ACM.
• Fitzgerald, G., Koury, K., & Mitchem, K. (2008). Research on computer-mediated instruction for students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(2), 201-233.
• Hall, T. E., Hughes, C. A., & Filbert, M. (2000). Computer Assisted Instruction in Reading for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Research Synthesis. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(2), 173–93.
• Hasselbring, T. S., & Glaser, C. H. W. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of Children, 102–122.
• Hernandez-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers’ use of technology in Silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 39–64.
• Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
• Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three‐dimensional (3‐D) immersive virtual worlds in K‐12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33–55.
• Higgins, T. E., & Spitulnik, M. W. (2008). Supporting teachers’ use of technology in science instruction through professional development: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 511–521.
• Hwang, G. J., Wu, C. H., & Fan-Ray, K. (2013). Effects of touch technology-based concept mapping on students' learning attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 274.
• Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.
• Kirk, S., Gallagher, J., Coleman, M. R., & Anastasiow, N. J. (2011). Educating Exceptional Children. Cengage Learning.
• Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. Technology Assessment in Education and Training, 9–33.
• Larwin, K., & Larwin, D. (2011). A meta-analysis examining the impact of computer-assisted instruction on postsecondary statistics education: 40 years of research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 253-278.
• Laursen, B., Jensen, B. R., Garde, A. H., & Jørgensen, A. H. (2002). Effect of mental and physical demands on muscular activity during the use of a computer mouse and a keyboard. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 215-221.
• Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
• Lee, B., Isenberg, P., Riche, N. H., & Carpendale, S. (2012). Beyond mouse and keyboard: Expanding design considerations for information visualization interactions. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12), 2689-2698.
• Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38(3), 7.
• Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139.
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. US Department of Education.
• Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction 6th Edition. John Wiley & Sons.
• Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342.
• Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.
• Okolo, C. M., & Bouck, E. C. (2007). Research about assistive technology: 2000–2006. What have we learned?. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(3), 19-33.
• Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
• Persichitte, K. A., Tharp, D. D., & Caffarella, E. P. (1997). The Use of Technology by Schools, Colleges and Departments of Education, 1996. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.
• Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.
• Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.
• Seo, Y.-J., & Bryant, D. P. (2009). Analysis of studies of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 53(3), 913–928.
• Shi, M., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2007). Teachers' experiences with computers: A comparative study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2).
• Shimizu, H., Yoon, S., & McDonough, C. S. (2010). Teaching skills to use a computer mouse in preschoolers with developmental disabilities: Shaping moving a mouse and eye–hand coordination. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(6), 1448-1461.
• Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology. Statistical Analysis Report. National Center for Education Statistics (ED), Washington, DC.
• Smith, S. J., & Okolo, C. (2010). Response to Intervention and Evidence-Based Practices: Where Does Technology Fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 257–272.
• Smith, T. E., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (1990). Teaching Students with Special Needs in Inclusive Settings (3’ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
• Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to enhance the reading comprehension of struggling readers: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 1–16.
• Taylor, R. L., Richards, S., & Brady, M. P. (2005). Mental retardation: Historical perspectives, current practices, and future directions. New York: Pearson Education.
• Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 5.
• Wachs, J. P., Kölsch, M., Stern, H., & Edan, Y. (2011). Vision-based hand-gesture applications. Communications of the ACM, 54(2), 60-71.
• Wang, S.-K., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). The effects of a web-based learning environment on student motivation in a high school earth science course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 169–192.
• Wenar, C., & Kerig, P. (2006). The developmental psychopathology approach. Developmental psychopathology. From infancy through adolescence (fifth ed.). New-York: McGraw-Hill.
• Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.