Running Head:
TEACHERSŐ ATTITUDE
General Education Teachers' Attitude
Regarding the Use in Their Classes of Assistive Technology by Students with
Learning Disabilities
Kimberly D. Garcia
Friendswood Independent School District
and
Randy L. Seevers
University of Houston - Clear Lake
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to
determine the general education teachersŐ attitude regarding the use in their
classes of assistive technology by students with learning disabilities. A five-point
Likert scale was used for this study. The participants were general education
teachers from elementary and secondary schools in a southwest region on the
Gulf Coast of Texas. The survey helped gather information to determine the
attitudes of general education teachers regarding the use of assistive
technology by students with learning disabilities in their classes. The
hypothesis was that general education teacherŐ attitudes would be positive
towards students with learning disabilities using assistive technology in their
classes. The hypothesis was supported by the results of the study.
Teachers' Attitude Regarding the Use in
Their Classes of Assistive Technology by Students with Learning Disabilities
Background
The
use of technology is growing rapidly in education as it is throughout society.
The National Regional Laboratory for Research and Development discovered that
educational technology is one of the six top issues in schools (Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory, 1995). Technology can help with real world
contexts that also engage learners in solving complex problems (Duffy &
Cunningham, 1996; Honebein, 1996; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt,
1992).
Are schools using technology and keeping
up with the new devices to help children of tomorrow learn? ŇOver the last 20
years, K-12 schools have spent millions of dollars equipping their schools with
the latest technologies, but often without a thoughtful plan of how their use
would impact learning and teachingÓ (Barnett, 2001). According to the National
Center for Education Statistics report (U.S. Department of Education, 2000),
many teachers do not know how to incorporate technology into their instruction.
Many teachers do not feel like they are prepared or trained to use technology
in their teaching (Lonergan, 2001). Teachers need to be trained and updated
with respect to the uses of technology. ŇTechnology by itself does not
guarantee learning. Rather, it is in how teachers and students use available
technologies that determines whether transformative learning happensÓ
(Driscoll, 2002). As general education classrooms are becoming more inclusive,
general education teachers need to become more aware and trained in the area of
assistive technology.
"Technology
provides the support needed to accomplish a task" (Quenneville, 2001). In
order for some students with learning disabilities to accomplish a task,
assistive technology is helpful with students. Assistive technology is
"any item, piece of equipment, or product system (whether acquired off the
shelf, modified, or customized) that is used to increase, maintain, or improve
functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities" (Behrmann,
1995). Examples of assistive technology are graphic organizers, cassette recorders,
hand-held calculators, augmentative communication devices, and instructional
software. Devices and services of this technology has been shown to enhance the
performance of students with disabilities by helping them to complete tasks
more efficiently and independently (Edyburn, 2000).
Inclusion
There are many ways inclusion benefits
students with learning disabilities. One way is assimilation into the general
classroom, which allows students with learning disabilities to feel part of the
general classroom consisting of students without learning disabilities. Another
benefit of inclusion is through academic skill acquisition. The students will
have an opportunity to learn new skills that may not be taught in special
education classrooms. Students with learning disabilities have a better chance
at becoming proficient in these subjects. "The amount of time engaged in
learning is increased for students without disabilities and for those with
milder disabilities. Also, students with disabilities spend more time engaged
in learning in regular education classrooms than in special settings"
(D'Alonzo, 1997). Inclusion also helps with social skill acquisition. Behaviors
and social skills from students with disabilities have been shown to improve
when they are in general classrooms versus in special education classrooms
(Cole & Meyer, 1991). Students without learning disabilities are more
likely to be accepting and willing to help students with learning disabilities.
Results were reported that when students without learning disabilities are
willing to help students with disabilities there were more positive attitudes
from students without disabilities, there was an increase response to the needs
of others, and increased appreciation for diversity (D'Alonzo, 1997).
Administrators
play an essential role in an inclusion program. They should be supportive for
all teachers. Collaboration between general and special education teachers is
very important for a successful program for all students. Teachers have to work
together to "assess student needs, teach in productive ways, and monitor
student progress" (Tralli, 1996).
Assistive
Technology
Assistive
technology is continuously rising in our schools and classrooms. Teachers are
becoming more aware of different devices to be used by students with learning
disabilities. Application of technology is a high priority need for teacher
education (Plotnick, 1996). "School district personnel must ensure that
assistive devices and services are available as a special education service,
supplemental aide, related service, modification, or accommodation if they are
deemed necessary for guaranteeing a free, appropriate public education"
(Bowser & Reed, 1995). IDEA mandates that assistive technology be
considered in developing IEPs for all students with disabilities, whether it be
in organization, note taking, writing, academic productivity, access to
reference and general education materials, and/or cognitive assistance
(Behrmann & Jerome, 2002). Schools are required to provide assistive technology
for students who need such tools, if they are necessary (Edyburn, 2000).
Technology is recommended to help students with learning disabilities achieve
challenging curriculums. An example of assistive technology in the classroom is
a student will listen to a novel that is a compact disc or cassette. Another
example is when the student is given instructional software to follow along
with the lesson/discussion being discussed in the classroom. It is important
for general education teachers utilize devices to help students with learning
disabilities, including assistive technology to compensate for their specific
learning disabilities. It is essential for teachers to know how to use
technology and how to integrate it into the curriculum (Kosakowski, 1998).
Assistive technology assists with students' frustration, increases motivation,
fosters a sense of peer acceptance, and improves productivity in the classroom
(Quenneville, 2001). "Teachers must select technology adaptations
appropriately, and monitor and evaluate the use of these adaptations in
classroom activities to determine their educational benefit for students with
learning disabilities" (Bryant & Bryant, 1998).
Purpose
of Study
This study was developed to seek and
evaluate general education teachersŐ attitudes regarding the use in their
classes of assistive technology by students with learning disabilities. Specifically, the researchers wanted to
find out what
the general education teachersŐ attitude was regarding the use in their classes of assistive technology by students with learning disabilities.
Participants
Participants
were 29 general education teachers from a small suburban school in the
southwest. Twenty-three of the participants were female and six were male. All
29 of the participants taught in an inclusion classroom. Seventeen of the
participants held a BachelorŐs degree, while 12 held a MasterŐs degree. Two of
the teachers taught for 0-3 years. Five of the teachers had 4-7 years of
teaching experience. Five of the teachers taught for 8-11 years. Six teachers
have taught for 12-15 years. Eleven of the teachers had 16 or more years of
teaching experience. There were a total of four schools involved in this study.
Instrumentation
The
teacher-researcher developed a questionnaire survey that was utilized as an
assessment instrument . There were
20 questions asked about the use of assistive technology. The researcher
gathered information regarding the general education teachersŐ attitude on the
use in their classes of assistive technology by students with learning
disabilities. The instrument was field tested on general education teachers
that were graduate students.
Procedure
First,
the researcher passed out the surveys to all grades, four through twelve
general education teachers. The surveys were put in each general education
teachersŐ mailbox on their specific campus. A period of one week was given for
surveys to be completed and returned to the researcherŐs campus mailbox. The
teachers were able to choose to not complete the survey. Each teacher responded
on the survey itself. The teachers responded to items using a five-point Likert
scale. The Likert indexes used were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree,
and strongly disagree.
Analysis
Quantitative
information was used to analyze the data from the surveys to determine what the
general education teachersŐ attitude on the use in their classes of assistive
technology by students with learning disabilities. All of the participants
fully completed the survey. No item responses were left blank. Frequencies,
means, and standard deviations were used to assess the teachersŐ responses.
Results
A summary of the statistics from the
general education teachersŐ attitude survey is presented in Table 1.
Frequencies of responses, means, and standard deviations are given.
Table
1
Summary
of Survey Data
|
Item |
% SA |
% A |
% N |
% D |
% SD |
M |
SD |
|
1 |
62.1 |
27.6 |
10.3 |
0 |
0 |
1.48 |
0.69 |
|
2 |
3.4 |
0 |
20.7 |
37.9 |
37.9 |
4.07 |
0.96 |
|
3 |
55.2 |
34.5 |
10.3 |
0 |
0 |
1.55 |
0.69 |
|
4 |
44.8 |
37.9 |
13.8 |
3.4 |
0 |
1.76 |
0.83 |
|
5 |
27.6 |
31 |
24.1 |
13.8 |
3.4 |
2.34 |
1.14 |
|
6 |
17.2 |
44.8 |
37.9 |
0 |
0 |
2.21 |
0.73 |
|
7 |
20.7 |
48.3 |
27.6 |
3.4 |
0 |
2.14 |
0.79 |
|
8 |
13.8 |
58.6 |
24.1 |
3.4 |
0 |
2.17 |
0.71 |
|
9 |
13.8 |
55.2 |
13.8 |
13.8 |
3.4 |
2.38 |
1.02 |
|
10 |
10.3 |
41.4 |
34.5 |
10.3 |
3.4 |
2.55 |
0.95 |
|
11 |
17.2 |
58.6 |
24.1 |
0 |
0 |
2.07 |
0.65 |
|
12 |
31 |
51.7 |
17.2 |
0 |
0 |
1.86 |
0.69 |
|
13 |
34.5 |
44.8 |
20.7 |
0 |
0 |
1.86 |
0.74 |
|
14 |
31 |
58.6 |
6.9 |
3.4 |
0 |
1.83 |
0.71 |
|
15 |
24.1 |
55.2 |
17.2 |
3.4 |
0 |
2 |
0.76 |
|
16 |
27.6 |
58.6 |
13.8 |
0 |
0 |
1.86 |
0.64 |
|
Table
1 (completed) |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Item |
% SA |
% A |
% N |
% D |
% SD |
M |
SD |
|
17 |
27.6 |
65.5 |
6.9 |
0 |
0 |
1.79 |
0.56 |
|
18 |
31 |
48.3 |
20.7 |
0 |
0 |
1.9 |
0.72 |
|
19 |
6.9 |
48.3 |
17.2 |
20.7 |
6.9 |
2.72 |
1.1 |
|
20 |
37.9 |
58.6 |
3.4 |
0 |
0 |
1.66 |
0.55 |
Note. SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, N =
neutral, D = disagree, SD = strongly
disagree.
All
of the responses to the survey items were generally positive, where lower
scores represent a more positive attitude. The item with the lowest score (most
positive response) was item 1 (M = 1.48, SD = .69). The item with
the highest score was item 2 (M = 4.07, SD = .96). Due to the
wording of the question, the high score on item 2 also reflects a positive
attitude.
Graph 1
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 1 in Survey
1. I think the availability of an AT
device for students is important in my class.
Based on the answers to survey question
1, 62.1 % strongly agreed and 27.6 agreed that AT devices were important in
their classes. Only 10.3% were neutral.
Graph 2
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 2 in Survey
2. I think too much time is spent using
AT devices in my class.
There were many participants that
strongly disagreed (37.9%) and disagreed (37.9) that too much time is spent
with AT devices being used in their classes. Only 3.4% strongly agreed with
20.7% being neutral.
Graph 3
Descriptive Analysis of Percent Responding
to Question 3 in Survey
3. I think integrating technology into
lessons for the student is beneficial in my class.
Many strongly agreed (55.2%) that
integrating technology in their classes is beneficial and 34.5% agreed while
10.3% were neutral.
Graph 4
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 4 in Survey
4. I think adapting assignments for
students is appropriate in my class.
Overall most participants strongly agreed
(44.8%) and agreed (37.9%) that adapting assignments is appropriate. A very
small percent (13.8%) were neutral while 3.4% disagreed.
Graph 5
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 5 in Survey
5. I think there are a growing number of
students in my class eager to use AT devices.
The participants in this survey indicated
that 27.6% strongly agreed, 31% agreed, 24.1% were neutral, 13.8% disagreed and
3.4% strongly disagreed about the eagerness to use AT devices.
Graph 6
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 6 in Survey
6. I think students who use AT devices in
my class will have higher achievement scores.
Majority of the participants agreed
(44.8%) and were neutral (37.9%) while 17.2% strongly agreed that AT devices
could produce higher achievement scores.
Graph 7
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 7 in Survey
7. I think AT devices used in my class
will help students work towards independence.
Most participants agreed (48.3%) that AT
devices with help students towards independence, while 20.7% strongly agreed,
27.6% were neutral and 3.4% disagreed.
Graph 8
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 8 in Survey
8. I think students using AT devices in
my class are able to identify their strengths and weaknesses.
Based on the answers to survey question
8, 13.8 % strongly agreed and 58.6% agreed that AT devices are able to identify
strengths and weaknesses. Only 24.1% were neutral, while 3.4% disagreed.
Graph 9
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 9 in Survey
9. I think the lack of training for
teachers in using AT devices is a major barrier for students' success in my
class.
Many agreed (55.2%) that the lack of
training for teachers is a major barrier for success of students in their
classes. Some strongly agreed
(13.8%), 13.8% were neutral, 13.8% disagreed and 3.4% strongly disagreed.
Graph 10
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 10 in Survey
10. I think administrators, teachers, and
parents are helpful when I need help or explanation of AT devices for my class.
According to the answers of survey
question 10, 41.4% agreed that administrators, teachers, and parents are
helpful when they need help or explanation of AT devices for their class. 34.5%
were neutral, 10.3% strongly agreed, 10.3% disagreed, while 3.4% strongly
disagreed.
Graph 11
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 11 in Survey
11. I think students that use AT devices
in my class are accepted among their peers.
Many agreed (58.6%) agreed that students that use AT devices are accepted among
their peers. 24.1% were neutral
and 17.2% strongly agreed.
Graph 12
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 12 in Survey
12. I think AT devices are useful for all
core academic classes.
Many (51.7%) agreed that AT devices are
useful for all core academic classes.
Only 17.2% were neutral while 31% strongly agreed.
Graph 13
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 13 in Survey
13. I think AT devices help students with
independent living skills.
Many agreed (44.8%) agreed that AT
devices help with independent living skills. 34.5% strongly agreed and 20.7%
were neutral.
Graph 14
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 14 in Survey
14. I think AT devices help students with
job skills.
Many agreed (58.6%) that AT devices help
with job skills and 31% strongly agreed while 6.9% were neutral and 3.4%
strongly disagreed.
Graph 15
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 15 in Survey
15. I think AT devices help students with
community skills.
Many agreed (55.2%) that AT devices help
with community skills and 24.1% strongly agreed while 17.2% were neutral and
3.4% strongly disagreed.
Graph 16
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 16 in Survey
16. I think AT devices help students
accomplish their tasks in my class.
Many agreed (58.6%) that AT devices help
accomplish tasks in class and 27.6% strongly agreed while 13.8% were neutral.
Graph 17
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 17 in Survey
17. I think AT devices used in my class
are effective in the students' learning process.
Many agreed (65.5%) that AT devices used are
effective in the students' learning process and 27.6% strongly agreed while
6.9% were neutral.
Graph 18
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 18 in Survey
18. I think my classroom set-up is
important for students who use AT devices.
Many agreed (48.3%) that classroom set-up
is important for students who use AT devices and 31% strongly agreed while
20.7% were neutral.
Graph 19
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 19 in Survey
19. I think there will be challenges to
overcome to accommodate students who use AT devices in my class.
Many agreed (48.3%) that there will be
challenges to overcome to accommodate students who use AT devices and 6.9%
strongly agreed while 17.2% were neutral, 20.7% disagreed and 6.9% strongly
disagreed.
Graph 20
Descriptive Analysis of Percent
Responding to Question 20 in Survey
20. I think overall, AT devices used in
my class are useful and helpful for students.
Many agreed (58.6%) that AT devices are
useful and helpful for students and 37.9% strongly agreed while 3.4% were
neutral.
Discussion
The hypothesis that general education teachers' attitude regarding the use in their classes of assistive technology by students with learning disabilities would be positive was supported. Kosakowski (1998) stated the essential need of teachers to use assistive technology. It appeared in the present study that teachers had a positive attitude toward incorporating assitive technology in their classrooms. The teachersŐ positive attitudes toward assistive technology may help with students' frustration, motivation, peer acceptance, and productivity in the classroom (Quenneville, 2001). Bryant and Bryant (1998) made a call for teachers to use assistive technology to benefit students. TeachersŐ positive attitude toward the use of assistive technology is essential for its successful use in promoting student success. From the present study, it appears that general education teachers have the positive attitude needed to successfully implement assistive technology in their classrooms.
The present study is limited by the small sample size and the use of volunteers. It may be that only general education teachers with positive attitudes towards assistive technology chose to complete and return the surveys. This study represents only a small number of general education teachers who chose to participate. Future studies should include a larger, more diverse sample to determine general education teachersŐ attitudes toward assistive technology and the effects of such attitudes.
References
Barnett, H. (2001).
Successful K-12 technology planning: Ten essential elements. Syracuse, NY: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 457858).
Behrmann, M. (1995).
Assistive technology for students with mild disabilities. Reston, VA: Council
for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378755).
Behrmann, M. & Jerome, M. (2002).
Assistive technology for students with mild disabilities. Arlington, VA: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 463595).
Bowser, G. & Reed, P. (1995).
Education TECH points for assistive technology planning. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 12, 325-330.
Bryant, B. & Bryant, D. (1998). Using
assistive technology adaptations to include students with learning disabilities
in cooperative learning activities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 41-55.
Cognition and Technology Group at
Vanderbilt. (1992). The jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning
and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development,
40, 65-80.
Cole, F. & Meyer, L. (1991). Social
integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes.
Journal of Special Education, 25,
340-351.
DŐAlonzo, B., Giordana, G. &
VanLeeuwen, D. (1997). Perceptions by teachers about the benefits and
liabilities of inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 42, 4-11.
Driscoll, M. (2002). How
people learn and what technology might have to do with it. Syracuse, NY: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 470032).
Duffy, T. & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. [In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillian.]
Edyburn, D. (2000). Assistive technology
and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32, 1-24.
Honebein, P. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. [In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.]
Kosakowski, J. (1998). The
benefits of information technology. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Information and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420032).
Lonergan, J. (2001).
Preparing urban teachers to use technology for instruction. New York, NY: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
460190).
Mastropieri, M. & Scruggs, T. (2000).
The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. New
Jersey: Merrill.
Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory. (1995). Northwest Report, Summer, 1995.
Quenneville, J. (2001). Tech tools for
students with learning disabilities: Infusion into inclusive classrooms. Preventing
School Failure, 45, 167-170.
Tralli, R. & Colombo, B. (1996). The
strategies intervention model: A model for supported inclusion at the secondary
level. Remedial & Special Education, 17, 204-216.
U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. (2000). TeachersŐ tool for the 21st
Century. A report on teachersŐ use of technology. Washington, DC: Author.