Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education Teacher ...

3 downloads 9007 Views 193KB Size Report
the importance of integrating technology into teacher preparation programs ... stitutions of higher education with graduate special education certification.
Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education (2011) 19(4), 473-497

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs Toni Van Laarhoven and Greg Conderman Northern Illinois University, USA [email protected] [email protected] Current legal mandates require that students with disabilities in K-12 settings have access to assistive technology (AT) devices and services. Therefore, educational teams serving students with Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) must consider various ATs and identify services to support their implementation in educational settings. However, research has reported that insufficient teacher expertise continues to impede effective student access to AT and that models and strategies for improving teacher expertise, particularly at the preservice level, are desperately needed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a model for integrating AT throughout a preservice undergraduate special education teacher preparation program at a large public university. Results indicated that special education teacher candidates were satisfied with their AT instruction and felt prepared for using ATs with students. Discussion and implications for integrating AT throughout a teacher education program are provided.

Leading researchers and practitioners in the Assistive Technology (AT) field (e.g., Bausch & Hasselbring, 2004; Edyburn, 2004; Judge & Simms, 2009; Parette, Peterson-Karlan, & Wojcik, 2005; Parette, Peterson-Karlan, Smith, Gray, & Silver-Pacuilla, 2006; Silver-Pacuilla, 2006) have recommended integrating AT into teacher education programs. Preparing future special educators to use AT is necessary because the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) and its amendments [Individuals with

474

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004)] require that all educational teams serving students with Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) consider various ATs and identify services to support their implementation [20 U.S.C. 1401 § 614(B)(v)]. The federal definition of assistive technology used in IDEIA is “any item, piece of equipment or product system, whether acquired commercially or off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” [IDEIA 2004), 20 U.S.C. § 1401(251)]. The IDEIA 2004 also defined AT services as “any service that directly assists an individual with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device” [20 U.S.C. 1401 § 602(2)]. On a practical level, these mandates require that teachers, particularly special educators, must a) be aware of available technologies, b) select devices or programs that can increase the performance and functioning of their students, c) assist students with using technologies and evaluating their effectiveness in instructional environments, d) effectively integrate technologies into instruction to ensure improved learner performance, and e) collaborate with related service providers, parents, and/or technology specialists on AT decisions. Although these mandates have been in place for several years, preparing future teachers to use AT in classroom settings continues to be a challenge. Inadequate preservice AT preparation has been cited as a primary obstacle in achieving meaningful integration and use of ATs among students with disabilities in school settings (Abner & Lahm, 2002; Bryant, Erin, Lock, Allan, & Resta, 1998; Edyburn, 2005; Judge & Simms, 2009; Michaels & McDermott, 2003; Wojcik, Peterson-Karlan, Watts, & Parette, 2004). Although the importance of integrating technology into teacher preparation programs has been established, few universities provide AT certification or training (Alper & Raharinirina, 2006; Lahm, 2005; Todis, 1996), and insufficient preparation has limited the number of professionals using AT in classroom settings (Edyburn, 2004; Judge, 2001). Results from two national surveys conducted within the last ten years substantiated inadequate AT preparation among special education teacher candidates. Michaels and McDermott (2003) surveyed coordinators of graduate special education teacher education programs across a sample of institutions of higher education with graduate special education certification programs. These authors measured how programs integrated AT knowledge, skills, and dispositions into graduate educational programs and determined how coordinators would ideally like to have AT integrated within their programs. Coordinators indicated that AT knowledge, skills, and dispositions

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

475

were addressed by (a) infusing AT into coursework, (b) dedicating coursework on AT, (c) aligning practices with general and special education standards, and (d) providing opportunities for actual or simulated experiences. However, survey results indicated a significant difference between current instruction on AT for preservice teachers and what coordinators reported as being ideal. Most coordinators noted that AT instruction was dependent on individual faculty members and that, as a whole, their programs were inadequately preparing teacher candidates for using and integrating AT into classroom settings. More recently, Judge and Simms (2009) surveyed institutions of higher education with special education teacher preparation programs to determine how AT was addressed in coursework. Results revealed that approximately one third of undergraduate programs and less than one quarter of master’sdegree programs required AT coursework. This suggests that many special educators enter the field without adequate AT knowledge and skills. Of the surveyed undergraduate programs requiring an AT course, 86% required only one course and 14% required two courses. The authors also noted that many institutions offered AT courses which were not always required. Clearly these results indicate an insufficient supply of coursework on AT for preservice special educators. This is problematic as these teachers will ultimately be required to identify AT devices and services for their future students. Fortunately, additional research describes different models or strategies for improving the current state of practice for integrating AT into preservice teacher education. One strategy involved collaboration among general and special education faculty in their respective courses (Jeffs & Banister, 2006). These authors evaluated the benefits of having faculty from general and special education programs collaboratively develop assignments within their undergraduate technology classes. In this investigation, special education teacher candidates taught general education peers about various ATs, and general education candidates taught special education peers how to use various multimedia. Results indicated that both groups gained skills and knowledge using AT and multimedia. To address the need for providing AT instruction in teacher education programs, several researchers (e.g., Blackhurst & Morse, 1996; VanLaarhoven, et al., 2008; Wojcik, et al., 2004) investigated the use of multimediabased interventions for teaching preservice teachers about AT. For example, Blackhurst and Morse (1996) evaluated the effectiveness of an instructional module that incorporated videos and other hypermedia components for teaching three different groups of professionals about AT. Results indicated

476

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

that undergraduate, graduate, and inservice professionals were satisfied with the instructional modules. Similarly, Van Laarhoven, et al. (2008) evaluated the effectiveness of using video tutorials (i.e., videos teaching candidates how to use various ATs) followed by hands-on experiences with technologies to teach preservice educators how to use ATs. Special and general education majors reported significant increases in familiarity with ATs, comfort level using ATs, and perceived effectiveness and comfort with integrating AT into future instruction. Additionally, participants indicated satisfaction with using video tutorials as an instructional tool. Wojcik, et al. (2004) also described a model for teaching both special and general education teacher candidates how to use AT. These authors described two different delivery models; an alternative track for elementary, middle, and secondary education teacher candidates and a traditional track for early childhood special education teacher candidates. Teacher candidates in the alternative track completed six online modules with descriptions, images, or short video clips depicting the use of AT in educational environments as well as links to Web based resources. After candidates passed online exams, they engaged in hands-on experiences and passed competency exams using selected technologies. Conversely, preservice teachers in the traditional track completed coursework specifically designated for teaching AT and also had content on AT infused within other courses. Collectively these studies suggest that collaboration between general and special education faculty and use of instructional modules, online modules, video tutorials, and/or designated coursework used in conjunction with hands on experiences are effective strategies for integrating AT into teacher education programs. Although these strategies appear to be effective, more research is needed regarding methods, models, or approaches for systematically integrating AT within teacher education and special education programs. Many researchers (e.g., Bausch & Hasselbring, 2004; Family Center on Technology and Disability, 2008; Judge & Simms, 2009; Lahm & Nickels, 1999; Smith, 2000) have recommended integrating AT knowledge, skills, and practice across the sequence of courses in the special education teacher preparation curriculum (Michaels & McDermott, 2003). This integrated approach provides repeated exposure of ATs to increase teacher candidates’ familiarity, skill level, and comfort level using technologies and therefore emphasizes the importance of supporting students’ use of AT in classroom settings. Such repeated exposure in various courses and in various ways increases the likelihood that teacher candidates will be able to select, support and use AT effectively with their future students.

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

477

Although researchers recommend the integration of AT throughout special education teacher preparation programs, several factors make this approach difficult to implement including lack of faculty expertise with AT, limited space in the curriculum for additional content, lack of resources (e.g., hardware, software, devices), and the perception that AT is only used with a limited number of students. These and other issues often make AT infusion a low priority in teacher education programs (Judge & Simms, 2009; Michaels & McDermott, 2003). Clearly, in order for the infusion of AT to become a reality within teacher education programs, faculty must not only value the inclusion of AT in the curriculum, but they also need to strategically consider its integration across courses within the program sequence. With this context in mind, the purposes of this paper are to a) describe how AT has been integrated throughout the special education teacher preparation program at a major Midwestern university and b) report on the effectiveness of integrating AT throughout the undergraduate special education program, based on teacher candidates’ perceptions and outcomes, after the first year of implementation. Method Participants and Setting The study was conducted in the College of Education at a comprehensive regional Midwestern teaching and research institution enrolling over 25,000 students. The undergraduate special education program, which currently enrolls about 375 undergraduate candidates, is offered within the Department of Teaching and Learning at Northern Illinois University. This four-year program prepares candidates to teach students with mild, moderate, and severe disabilities in inclusive, resource, and self contained programs in K-12 settings. Forty-seven preservice undergraduate special education majors, who had just concluded their student teaching experience, completed an outcome survey assessing their satisfaction with how AT was integrated into their preparation program. These teacher candidates represented the first program cohort completers who experienced an integrated approach to AT instruction. Therefore, faculty desired candidate perceptions to assess the effectiveness of this approach and determine whether or not additional curricular changes were needed.

478

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

Background Information Prior to integrating AT throughout the curriculum, AT was covered in only a few courses, namely methods courses associated with teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities. Professors of those courses brought various ATs to class for candidate practice which was both inconvenient and time consuming. Faculty shared a vision for having an AT lab which became a reality after involving the Dean, writing various grants for equipment, training faculty on ATs, holding many discussions, and making numerous decisions about ATs. For example, faculty purposely selected ATs that would provide candidates with a wide range of experiences and address a wide range of skills. Faculty also wanted the AT lab to become fairly self-sustaining. Therefore, to sustain the lab, which is used by candidates across all university teacher education programs (including elementary and secondary education programs), professors added nominal course fees to selected courses which serve as a constant source of revenue for upgrading computers and purchasing ATs. All of these procedures needed to be in place before integrating AT became a reality. Certainly, developing a shared vision took time and involved numerous stakeholders. To integrate AT throughout the special education program, special education faculty initially engaged in curriculum mapping and identified specific ATs that supported or were relevant to content being taught in various special education undergraduate methods courses. To accomplish this task, during a regularly scheduled program meeting, faculty listed all special education courses in the program and discussed key content associated with each course. Then they linked ATs frequently used to support or enhance P-12 students’ performance and access to the general education curriculum across various content areas covered in such courses. The resulting document listed courses and their corresponding ATs and thus displayed how ATs would be integrated throughout the program. An abbreviated version of this matrix is shown in Table 1. As noted in Table 1, this document proved to be critical for internal and external assessment reviews as it recorded candidate’s exposure to and mastery of meeting state and national technology standards.

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

479

Table 1 Sample of Courses and Associated ATs in the Undergraduate Special Education Program. Assistive Technologies Integrated Across Courses in Undergraduate Special Education Program Pre-Major TLSE 240: Intro to Special Education

Overview of AT & Related Laws

*COMD 220: Intro to Communication Disorders

Overview of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) & Visual Supports

Block 1: Elementary Focus TLSE 420: Accessing the General Curriculum: Elementary I 

• • •

Write:Outloud Draft:Builder Co:Writer

TLSE 435: Accessing the General Curriculum: Elementary II 

• •

Lexia Reading Aimsweb

TLSE 466: Clinical Experience in Special Education: Elementary



Candidates encouraged to integrate technologies into clinical if available

Block 2: Secondary Focus TLSE 440: Accessing Middle School/ Secondary General Curriculum

• • •

Kurzweil 3000 Start-to-Finish Books Thinking Reader

TLSE 456: Collaboration for Inclusive Teaching and Learning

• • • •

Aspire Reader Kurzweil 3000 (advanced) WordQ Alpha Smart

TLSE 467: Clinical Experience in Special Education: Middle/Secondary



Candidates encouraged to integrate technologies into clinical if available

*Integration of Assistive Technology and Hands-On Experiences is Dependent on Instructor  Prior to these curriculum mapping activities and AT integration initiatives, candidate’s hands-on experiences with AT were primarily limited to methods courses associated with instructing individuals with significant disabilities, which appears to be common among special education teacher education programs nation-wide (Judge & Simms, 2009; Michaels & Mc-

480

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

Dermott, 2003). However, to broaden the scope of AT instruction to include technologies for individuals with mild or high incidence disabilities and expand AT integration across the curriculum for all teacher candidates, AT was introduced in six sections (50%) of required special education courses through a state funded project (Project ACCEPT) aimed at preparing preservice teachers to collaborate in inclusive classrooms. As part of this project, piloted from 2002-2006, preservice candidates and their instructors received instruction on universal design for learning (UDL) and various ATs, usually through hands-on experiences. Follow-up surveys assessing the project’s effectiveness indicated that preservice teacher’s knowledge of AT increased substantially (Van Laarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Bosma, & Rouse, 2007). Similarly, first year teachers who participated in the project reported that hands-on AT experiences was one of the greatest benefits of the project (Van Laarhoven, et al., 2006). Based on the results of this project as well as their belief that candidates would benefit most from learning specific ATs associated with corresponding coursework and clinical experiences, special education faculty made the infusion of AT into additional courses a priority. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of integrating AT throughout the undergraduate special education program after its first year of implementation. Description of Program After being admitted into the undergraduate special education program, candidates progress through three distinctive blocks of courses and field experiences. ATs introduced in each block are consistent with the theme of that block. For example, the first block emphasizes curricula, methods, behavioral approaches and ATs appropriate for elementary students with high- incidence disabilities. Candidates take two methods courses, a classroom management course, a human development course, and an elementary level (Grades K-5) special education field experience. One methods course includes experiences with Write:Outloud, Draft: Builder, and Co:Writer. As a homework assignment, candidates document their experience with each of these technologies by completing a tutorial in the AT lab. Each tutorial includes a video demonstration of the selected technology that introduces and guides candidates through the AT and requires them to practice the program. To document their learning, candidates complete a checkout form, as noted in Figure 1. Candidates are encouraged to use these and other available technologies during their elementary-based field experience.

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

481

Figure 1. Sample check-out form used by teacher candidates. The second block of courses emphasizes methods and materials appropriate for secondary learners with high- incidence disabilities. Candidates take a methods course, a collaboration course, an advanced class on social/ emotional/behavioral supports, a transition course, a foundations of education course, and a secondary special education (Grades 6-12) field experi-

482

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

ence. The methods course presents Thinking Reader, Start-to-Finish books, and an introduction to Kurzweil 3000. The collaboration course introduces Alpha Smart, Aspire Reader, Word Q, and Advanced Kurzweil 3000. Again, candidates complete tutorials and checkouts with these technologies and consider how they could use these in their future classrooms by completing a reflection sheet. They are also encouraged to seek out these and other technologies appropriate for older students with high- incidence disabilities during their secondary clinical experience. The third block of courses and experiences emphasize the needs of students with more significant needs. Candidates take two methods courses, an adapted Physical Education (PE) class and associated adapted PE field experience, an educational technology course, and a K-12 field experience with students with moderate or severe needs. One of the methods courses emphasizes assistive technologies used by individuals with multiple disabilities. Therefore, candidates learn to use many ATs in this block such as: AAC Devices (BIGmack, Super Talker, etc); Switches, Battery Adapters, and PowerLink3; All-Turn-it-Spinner; Writing with Symbols; Boardmaker with Speaking Dynamically Pro; IntelliTools Classroom Suite; Intellikeys; Overlay Maker 3; Clicker 5; Microsoft Accessibility Features; and Multimedia (photos and video). Either as part of the course or as homework, candidates practice these technologies, document their reflections via their checkouts, and are encouraged to use them during their associated field experience. Methods of Evaluation and Instrumentation A posttest only design was used to measure outcomes of the integrated AT instructional approach. During the conclusion of their student teaching experience, participating special education candidates were given a 20-item survey assessing their satisfaction with their AT instruction. The survey included 17 Likert rating scale items and three open-ended questions. Mixed model research methodology was used to analyze the data. Rating Scale Items. The first 17 survey items consisted of statements related to the teacher candidates’ attitude, familiarity, comfort level, preparedness, and satisfaction with instruction of AT. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement by choosing a response on a 6-point scale (i.e., 1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree). The instrument was informed by, but modified substantially from that reported by Van Laarhoven, et al. (2008). Specifically, the authors omitted 16 questions from

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

483

the original 40-item survey, added three questions assessing teacher candidates’ preparedness for using AT in classroom settings and their satisfaction with their AT instruction, and modified wording on other items. The instrument was field-tested with 10 teacher candidates, reviewed by three faculty members, and refined based on their feedback. Surveys were distributed to all clinical supervisors who were responsible for evaluating special education teacher candidates during their student teaching experience. Toward the conclusion of the student teaching experience, clinical supervisors distributed surveys to all teacher candidates on their caseload and then collected surveys upon completion. All but two candidates completed the surveys, for a 95.7% response rate. After surveys were received, a graduate student consolidated and inputted data into an Excel file for analysis. The authors conducted inter-rater reliability on coded survey items to ensure accuracy of the data (99% reliability) and then resolved any disagreements prior to final analysis. To analyze the data, items were clustered into five subscales that addressed teacher candidates’: (a) attitude toward AT and instruction on AT, (b) familiarity with different types of AT, (c) comfort level with using different types of AT, (d) preparedness to use AT in classroom settings, and (e) satisfaction with instruction of AT. Three items made up the first subscale, which involved statements related to the importance of AT training for teachers and its use in classroom settings. An example statement included, “I believe all teachers should be familiar with assistive technology”. The second subscale included three items related to teacher candidates’ familiarity with different types of AT (e.g., “I am familiar with AT that can be used to accommodate the needs of individuals with high- incidence disabilities”). Three similar items on the third subscale were used to measure comfort level using different kinds of ATs such as, “I feel comfortable using AT for individuals with developmental disabilities (e.g., switches, augmentative and alternative communication devices)”. The fourth subscale included four items related to candidates’ preparedness to use AT with students in their clinical placements as well as in their future teaching careers (e.g., “I feel prepared to use AT with my future students when I become a teacher”). The fifth subscale, satisfaction with instruction on AT, included four statements related to how AT was taught and integrated in the special education program (e.g., “Having different ATs covered in my coursework assisted me in identifying ATs usefulness for meeting the needs of students with a wide range of skills”). Open-ended questions. To gain a more thorough understanding of teacher candidates’ satisfaction with how AT was introduced throughout

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

484

their educational program and to obtain suggestions for improvement, three open-ended items were also included in the survey. These items included: (a) Describe your level of satisfaction with how AT was covered in your coursework, (b) List some possible technologies that you believe would have been beneficial to include as part of your educational program, and (c) Please write suggestions for how we can improve instruction of AT. A copy of the AT outcome survey can be obtained by contacting the first author. Results Overall, results indicated that the special education preservice teachers were satisfied with how AT was integrated throughout their program. They indicated that AT instruction was important, they believed they were prepared to use ATs with students in classroom settings, and they indicated that they were familiar with and comfortable using various ATs. Specific results related to subscales and open-ended items follow. Preservice Teachers’ Attitude, Familiarity, Comfort Level, Preparedness, and Satisfaction with Instruction of AT Internal Consistency of Rating Scale Items. Cronbach’s alpha scores were computed to establish the internal consistency of the survey’s subscales. Cronbach’s alpha scores for the five subscales were as follows: attitude toward AT was .68, (adequate); familiarity with AT was .92, (very good); comfort with AT was .93, (very good); preparedness for using AT in classroom settings was .89, (very good); and satisfaction with AT instruction was .92, (very good). Although the attitude toward AT subscale had a somewhat lower alpha score due to little variability in participants’ scores on these items, the survey can be considered a reliable and valid instrument. Results of Rating Scale Items. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze preservice teacher candidates’ agreement or disagreement with survey statements and compiled according to various subscales. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for each subscale by gender as well as effect sizes by gender in the far right column (Cohen, 1988). Independent Samples t-tests were originally calculated to determine significant differences between male and female respondents across subscales, and although gender difference for familiarity were not significant (t (43) = 1.77, p = .08), scores on attitude and satisfaction subscales were negatively skewed, which suggested that a

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

485

non-parametric test was more appropriate for these subscales. The MannWhitney test was then used for the Attitude and Satisfaction subscales which revealed no significant gender differences for these subscales, nor for any of the other scales (p > .05). Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores and Effect Sizes by Gender Subscale

Gender

N

Mean*

Std. Dev.

Male

6

5.61

0.61

Female

39

5.77

0.35

Combined

47

5.76

0.39

Male

6

4.61

0.80

Female

39

5.16

0.69

Combined

47

5.12

0.72

Male

6

4.67

0.63

Female

39

4.94

0.94

Combined

47

4.95

0.91

Male

6

4.29

0.94

Female

39

4.63

0.90

Combined

47

4.62

0.91

Male

6

4.79

0.89

Female

39

4.76

1.08

Combined

47

4.79

1.04

Attitude

Familiarity

Comfort

Preparedness

Satisfaction

Effect Size (d) by Gender d = .40 Moderate effect

d = .78 Moderate-to-large effect

d = .30 Moderate effect

d = .37 Moderate effect

d = 0.03 Small effect

*Rating Scale Values: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Disagree Somewhat, 4 = Agree Somewhat, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree

486

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

Table 2 displays mean scores of all respondents by gender as well as their group mean score across each subscale. The far right column displays the effect size related to the magnitude of difference between male and female respondents. The effect size was analyzed using partial eta-squared (Cohen, 1988) with the following guidelines used to measure effect size: d < 0.2 is small; 0.2 < d < 0.8 is moderate; d > 0.8 is large. As noted in Table 2, subscale combined scores indicated that candidates agreed (response of 5) or agreed somewhat (response of 4) with items in each subscale. Although female mean scores were higher in every category except satisfaction, the results were not significant. Highest combined scores were in the attitude category while lowest scores were in the preparedness category. A closer analysis of the subscales indicated that females had a slightly higher mean (M = 5.77) than males (M = 5.61) concerning attitudes toward the importance of AT instruction for teachers and students in classroom settings. The effect size of that difference was moderate (d = .40), however, as a group, they agreed/strongly agreed that AT was a very important aspect of teacher education (M = 5.76). Familiarity with AT had a moderate-to-large effect by gender (d = .78) with males reporting less familiarity with ATs (M = 4.61) than females (M = 5.16). Overall, participants agreed that they were familiar with different types of AT (M = 5.12). Males reported being slightly less comfortable using various ATs (M = 4.67) than females (M = 4.94), and the effect size was moderate (d = .30). In general, respondents agreed they were comfortable using various ATs. A moderate effect was also observed by gender (d = .37) when analyzing preparedness to use ATs in classrooms and females reported more agreement (M = 4.63) than males (M = 4.29). For the most part, respondents agreed that they felt prepared to use AT in classroom settings (M = 4.62) and were satisfied with how AT was taught (M = 4.79). Results of Open-ended Questions. Teacher candidates responded to three open-ended questions in the second part of the survey. Data from open-ended questions were analyzed to identify critical themes. First, all written responses to the three open-ended questions were typed and both co-authors received a copy of the printed comments. Then, each co-author independently read, analyzed, and coded responses for each question based on reoccurring themes. If two or more responses within a sample group were similar, they were coded into a category. Co-authors communicated six times to share their categories and responses within each category. When discussing the coding systems, the analysis began with 33 categories across 12 major themes for the three questions. Authors, however, discussed the

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

487

need to consolidate two themes and reconfigure two categories. Responses from all three questions were therefore coded into 33 categories across 11 major themes. Co-authors then re-coded data with the new themes and categories and conducted inter-rater reliability using the percentage agreement index (agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100). One hundred and forty-nine comments were coded by both authors with 97% agreement, and disagreements were resolved through discussion before final analysis. The major themes and categories can be found in Tables 3-5. The first open-ended question asked about candidate’s level of satisfaction with how AT was covered in their coursework (Table 3). Themes for this question were: being satisfied (31 comments); being fairly satisfied (5 comments); and not being satisfied (6 comments). Satisfied candidates wrote comments such as: “I was happy with my AT coursework. My professor was very knowledgeable and was able to teach the AT to us on a personal level due to her experience with the technology.” Candidates noted that they felt they were more prepared to use AT than graduates from other universities and their cooperating teachers. They mentioned the “multitude of experiences” they had working with AT throughout their program and appreciated the enthusiasm and skills of their professors and the convenience of the campus AT lab. A few candidates wrote that they were satisfied but additional coursework, more hands-on experiences, or more connections to their clinical site would have been helpful. Those who were fairly satisfied noted that AT instruction provided a good foundation or overview, but they would have liked more in depth knowledge of the ATs, and they needed more application. Those who were not satisfied wrote that “AT was not covered in an effective manner”, they would have liked more training, discussion, or time with the ATs, or AT was not covered in the program. Regardless of their level of satisfaction, candidates noted the importance of learning AT through hands-on practice and their frustration with not having many ATs available to them during field experiences. Table 3 Themes and Categories for First Open-Ended Question Themes and Categories for Question #18: Describe your level of satisfaction with how AT was covered in your coursework.

Number of Percentage Comments of Comments Total = 42 Per Theme and Category

Satisfied

31

74%

Satisfied-well prepared-enjoyed classes

16

38%

Satisfied and teacher did effective job

6

14%

488

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

Table 3 continued Themes and Categories for Question #18: Describe your level of satisfaction with how AT was covered in your coursework.

Number of Percentage Comments of Comments Total = 42 Per Theme and Category

Satisfied but additional coursework work be helpful

2

5%

Satisfied but need for additional hands-on

2

5%

Satisfied but AT not used in schools or clinical sites much

5

12%

Fairly Satisfied

5

12%

Good foundation or overview

2

5%

Need more in depth

2

5%

Need more application

1

2%

Not So Satisfied

6

14%

Not presented in effective manner

1

2%

Could have had more training or discussion time

4

10%

Do not feel it was covered

1

2%

The second question asked participants to list possible technologies they believe would have been beneficial to include as part of their program (Table 4). Primarily, rather than naming specific ATs, candidates noted general categories (e.g., ATs for students with high- incidence disabilities or AAC devices), for which they needed additional instruction. They were able to articulate their own training needs based on their coursework and field experiences. Multiple suggestions by a single candidate were coded in more than one category, as appropriate. Themes for this question included: no suggestions or sufficient coverage of AT (28 comments); more in depth instruction on technologies already covered (14 comments); more instruction on projection systems and/or Smart Boards (4 comments); and miscellaneous (6 comments). Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated that they could not think of any additional ATs or believed that the most beneficial ATs were covered in their coursework. Slightly over one quarter of the respondents indicated that they would prefer more in-depth coverage of high- incidence software/devices, AAC or more advanced AAC devices

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

489

(i.e., Dynavox), positioning and healthcare equipment, and various devices such as switches and/or AlphaSmarts. Table 4 Themes and Categories for Second Open-Ended Question Themes and Categories for Question #19: List some possible technologies that you believe would have been beneficial to include as part of your educational program.

Number of Comments Total = 52

Percentage of Comments Per Theme and Category

No Suggestions or Sufficient Coverage of AT

28

54%

None, could not think of any new ATs or believed anything would be helpful

24

46%

Believed most beneficial technologies were covered

4

8%

More in-depth on ATs already covered

14

27%

High- Incidence Software/Devices

3

6%

AAC or more advanced AAC

7

13%

Positioning and healthcare equipment

2

4%

Various devices (switches, AlphaSmart)

1

2%

More hands-on

1

2%

Projection Systems/Smart Boards

4

8%

Projection Systems/Smart Boards

4

8%

Miscellaneous

6

12%

Suggestions when schools have limited ATs

3

6%

How to be AT specialist

1

2%

More information on companies

1

2%

Standardized testing with AT

1

2%

Question 3 asked informants how to improve the AT instruction in their program (Table 5). Themes for this question were: make no changes or continue with current model (23 comments); provide additional coursework or integrate AT more in existing courses (8 comments); provide some different assignments, approaches or connections using ATs (21 comments); and present information on additional and different ATs (3 comments). The most frequent comments or categories focused on including more hands- on ex-

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

490

periences with AT (5 comments) and seeing AT being used in the schools (10 comments). Candidates reflected upon the disconnect between their university preparation in AT and the reality of using ATs in their clinical sites by writing: “Allow us to visit schools where AT is in use to see it in action”; “Work with surrounding schools to allow teacher candidates to have classroom experiences with AT devices”; and “Look at technologies that are being used in specific placements”. They emphasized the importance of learning ATs through hands-on experiences and suggested infusing AT instruction in non-special education courses and requiring AT assignments during clinical experiences. Table 5 Themes and Categories for Third Open-Ended Question Themes and Categories for Question #20: Please write suggestions for how we can improve instruction of AT.

Number of Comments Total = 55

Percentage of Comments Per Theme and Category

No Changes

23

56%

Continue

4

7%

None

19

35%

Coursework

8

15%

More coursework or integrate more

8

15%

Different Assignments, Approaches, Connections

21

38%

More connection with clinical experiences, parents, and professionals/students in schools

10

18%

What to do with limited ATs in schools

1

2%

More in-depth work with existing ATs (more focus on a few)

4

7%

More in-class work on AT (more than checkouts)

1

2%

More hands-on

5

9%

Additional Technologies

3

5%

More with high- incidence AT

1

2%

Projection and Smart Board

2

4%

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

491

Discussion and Implications This paper both described how special education faculty members infused AT into an undergraduate special education teacher preparation program and presented survey data from the first cohort of undergraduate special education candidates assessing their perceptions of this new curricular approach. Although results did not indicate significant differences based on gender, participants were generally satisfied with how AT was covered in their educational program and also provided useful information regarding methods for improving the integration of AT throughout special education teacher education programs. Admittedly, integrating AT throughout a teacher preparation program takes time, faculty commitment, and resources. Further, faculty and teacher education candidates have various levels of interest, comfort, and background with ATs which need to be respected. To address these differences, faculty may need a certain amount of freedom regarding how much class time they devote to ATs associated with their course and how they wish to present ATs. Clearly, some faculty will spend more time on ATs than others through class discussions, demonstrations, and activities. The model described here required all faculty to at least agree to include an AT assignment on their syllabus requiring candidates to complete hands-on activities in the AT lab. Including an AT requirement on course syllabi validates the importance of AT across courses and professors. Candidates also have different levels of expertise and comfort with AT. Therefore, faculty provided various supports for candidates such as classroom demonstrations involving follow along activities, on-line tutorials, DVDs, partner work, open lab hours with time to receive assistance and practice on their own, and one-onone assistance from faculty members. Candidates have taken advantage of these supports and often return to the AT lab to refresh their skills during their student teaching semester. After the first year of infusing AT throughout the curriculum, faculty desired candidate feedback so additional changes could be made as needed. Assessing candidate satisfaction of their preparation program, though not a perfect science, is typically one important component of self, state, and national assessment reviews, and therefore such results should be seriously considered when making programmatic changes. Results from candidate surveys may also be used to substantiate the need for AT resources and justify new courses and curricular changes. For example, based on candidate survey results and other program assessments, faculty have decided to a) integrate additional ATs into clinical assignments; b) update and revise video tutorials; c) place video tutorials online, so others have access to the pro-

492

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

grams, 4) provide more AT staff development for cooperating teachers, and 5) finalize AT integration into the graduate special education program. Faculty in higher education are expected to use data in making programmatic, curricular, and assessment decisions, and candidate surveys are an important source of rich data. Further, assessing candidate perceptions of their AT preparation may provide insights regarding reasons why some teachers use AT and others do not, particularly when their students would have benefitted from its use. Findings here indicate that candidates were satisfied with their AT instruction and felt comfortable and prepared to use AT with students in their future classroom settings. Similarly, the majority of candidates agreed or strongly agreed that ATs are important and that all teachers need to be familiar with ATs. Finally, candidates were able to reflect on their AT instruction and offer specific and helpful suggestions for faculty consideration. Survey results indicated that candidates provided the strongest level of agreement regarding their attitude toward AT. Perhaps candidate’s strong attitudes about AT may be attributed to the integrated approach in which ATs are emphasized every semester by every professor, rather than just those teaching a methods course for students with intellectual disabilities, a technology course, or those with AT expertise. Even the Introduction to Special Education course and the Collaboration course emphasize the importance of using ATs to support students with accessing the general education curriculum. Believing that all teachers should be familiar with AT promotes shared problem-solving and collaboration by acknowledging that AT is not just the special educator’s responsibility, especially as more students with disabilities receive an increased amount of their instruction in inclusive settings (Annual Report to Congress, 2007). Similarly, having a positive attitude about AT may encourage candidates to reflect on their strengths and needs in AT and make a professional commitment to remain current regarding the latest AT developments. However, having a positive disposition toward AT is insufficient regarding its use and implementation. Candidates also need to feel confident in their level of preparedness. Candidate’s preparedness score (M= 4.62) indicates that they somewhat agree to agree that they are prepared to use ATs in the schools. Although still within an acceptable level, this was their lowest score. Perhaps this lower score was due, in part, to candidates observing different ATs in their clinical settings or realizing that they cannot be well prepared for using every possible AT. If candidate responses are viewed in this perspective, acknowledging that they need more preparation is actually a good outcome! Admittedly, it is difficult to prepare new teachers for all the challenges and responsibilities they will face as they begin their careers, and beginning special educators are not expected to have the same knowl-

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

493

edge and abilities as their more experienced peers (Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010). However, to serve as change agents, candidates need to have the knowledge, skills, and experiences that provide them with sufficient confidence and preparation to resist pressures of any existing school culture that may actually mitigate innovation. Further, students who would benefit from AT may actually be denied such services when their teachers are ill-prepared in AT (Bausch & Hasselbring, 2004). Not surprising was a major theme that candidates desire hands-on experiences with AT. Respondents in this study wrote “I enjoyed how handson it was”; “Implementing AT throughout courses is easier to generalize instead of one course one semester and then not covering it again”; “Include even more hands-on activities with the technologies”; and “Learning all the technologies in a hands-on way was beneficial to me”. Clearly, just presenting, discussing, or showing videos of various ATs are insufficient for teacher candidates. Exposure is insufficient. Practicing a particular AT once is insufficient. Expertise in AT requires multiple hands-on experiences that provide candidates with the knowledge, skills, and confidence required to suggest particular ATs to a school-based team, use ATs appropriately in their classrooms, and train others, such as parents, general educators, or paraprofessionals in their use. Adult learners appreciate instruction that is systematic, stimulating, spontaneous, and safe (Teeters, 2001). These instructional tenants are especially critical when presenting ATs due to candidate differences in experience, comfort, and skill with AT. Therefore, offering practice sessions, tutorial sessions, partner work, and opportunities to work at one’s own pace may enhance teacher candidate confidence and skill with AT while respecting different skill levels and preferred learning styles. In short, teacher familiarity, confidence, and skill in choosing and using AT are dependent on teacher preparation and time for self-directed exploration and learning (Judge & Simms, 2009). Another theme from survey results was the importance of connecting ATs with candidates’ field experiences. Some candidates noted a disconnect between ATs taught in their teacher preparation program and existing practice in the schools. Specifically, several candidates wrote that AT was lacking in their clinical site, which was also supported by research conducted by Puckett (2004). One candidate wrote: “It’s great to know, but the majority of schools don’t use it”. Another respondent suggested that faculty allow candidates to check out an AT to take to their clinical site. Several respondents suggested that they be placed in classrooms where AT is used. Some respondents suggested that faculty assign AT assignments to their clinical experiences. These suggestions support the notion of a stronger connection between what transpires in the university classroom and what occurs in the clinical classroom (Family Center on Technology and Disability, 2008).

494

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

Most likely, if candidates do not have authentic opportunities to practice ATs with children in the schools, they will be less likely to use them in their own classrooms. Admittedly, field experiences that include few opportunities for candidates to apply their knowledge and skills become barriers to their development (Griffin, Jones, & Kilgore, 2006; Leko, 2008). Preservice teacher candidates are strongly influenced by practices they observe in field experiences, and a void in seeing, using, or practicing AT during clinical experiences may signal that AT is not important. However, prospective teachers need to learn to operate and implement AT in all potential learning environments, so they are prepared to fulfill their job-related responsibilities such as evaluating students who have AT needs, matching students to the most appropriate AT, consulting and collaborating with others regarding a student’s AT, training others on AT, adapting and modifying curriculum using ATs, and evaluating ATs (Bausch & Hasselbring, 2004). Carefully structured clinical activities and assignments, integrated throughout a candidate’s preparation program and connected to coursework can provide much needed practice with these skills, but only if such experiences are supported by those at the clinical site. Concluding Thoughts Infusing AT into teacher education programs is, admittedly, a challenging process. As part of that process, multiple discussions with chairs, deans, donors, AT suppliers, and others may be necessary and helpful as faculty collaboratively share and develop curricular innovations that are cost-efficient, research-based, and that respect various levels of faculty and candidate AT familiarity and skill. As an initial step, special education faculty may find curricular mapping helpful while collectively and strategically targeting which courses will introduce specific ATs. As with other curricular outcomes, continuously reviewing AT instruction within the teacher preparation program provides faculty with critical feedback. On-going assessment is needed to avoid being static in a very dynamic field. Candidate surveys, portfolios, interviews, follow-up surveys, and focus groups provide faculty with formative assessment data with which to make data-based curricular changes. Further, involving the broader community such as cooperating teachers, school administrators, technology specialists, parents of students with disabilities, and community agency representatives in discussions about AT preparation and their use in a teacher education program may create a rich dialogue from multiple perspectives that will ultimately strengthen the program’s AT scope and mission. To that end,

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

495

the study supports future research with larger samples and with preservice teachers in both general and special education programs. Teacher candidates from early childhood, elementary, and secondary programs need to be adequately prepared to use ATs with students, given the increase in inclusionary placements for students with disabilities, the collaborative nature of schools, and the critical and increasing role of technology in teaching and learning for all students. In closing, integrating AT in special education teacher education programs is a process that may begin with faculty reviewing courses, analyzing state and teacher certification standards, and involving candidates, administrators, and other stakeholders in developing a shared vision. As with other curricular innovations, the on-going assessment process continues with collecting data from various sources, such as candidates, which provides necessary feedback regarding its implementation. Such feedback justifies changes which ultimately strengthen the teacher education program by preparing special educators who have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be leaders and advocates for students who will profit from ATs. Only when special educators are confident in their AT skills and feel fully prepared using various ATs can students with disabilities receive the necessary individualized services and supports that will increase their performance, functioning, and learning and help them be more productive in and out of school. References Abner, G. H., & Lahm, E. A. (2002, February). Implementation of assistive technology with students who are visually impaired: Teachers’ readiness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 98-105. Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47-64. Annual Report to Congress, (2007). 2007 Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from:http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ osep/2007/part-d/index.html Bausch, M. E., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2004). Assistive technology: Are the necessary skills and knowledge being developed at the preservice and inservice levels? Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 190-201. Blackhurst, A., & Morse, T. (1996). Using anchored instruction to teach about assistive technology. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 131-141. Bryant, D. P., Erin, J., Lock, R., Allan, J. M., & Resta, P. E. (1998). Infusing a teacher preparation program in learning disabilities with assistive technology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 55-66.

496

Van Laarhoven and Conderman

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Edyburn, D. L. (2004). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practices, 5(4), 16-23. Edyburn, D. L. (2005). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities: From consideration to outcome measurement. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 239-270). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design. Family Center on Technology and Disability: News and Notes (2008, April). Preservice AT Training: Infusion is the Word, 73, 3-14. Griffin, C., Jones, H. A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2006). A qualitative study of student teachers’ experiences with collaborative problem solving. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 44-55. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1401, 1412, 1414. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Amendments of 2004, P.L. 108-446. 20 U.S.C 1400. Jeffs, T., & Banister, S. (2006). Enhancing collaboration and skill acquisition through the use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 407-433. Judge, S. L. (2001). Computer applications in programs for young children with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 29-40. Judge, S., & Simms, K. A. (2009). Assistive technology training at the pre-service level: A national snapshot of teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 33-44. Lahm, E. (2005). Improving practice using assistive technology knowledge and skills. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 721- 746). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design. Lahm, E. A., & Nickels, B. L. (1999). What do you know? Assistive technology competencies for special educators. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 32(1), 56-64. Leko, M. M. (2008). Understanding the various influences on special education preservice teachers’ appropriation of conceptual and practical tools for teaching reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Michaels, C. A., & McDermott, J. (2003). Assistive technology integration in special education teacher preparation: Program coordinators’ perceptions of current attainment and importance. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 29-41. Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Wojcik, B. W. (2005). The state of assistive technology services nationally and implications for future development. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2(1), 13-24. Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Smith, S. J., Gray, T., & Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2006). The state of assistive technology: Themes from an outcomes summit. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 3, 15-33.

Integrating Assistive Technology into Special Education

497

Puckett, K. S. (2004). Project ACCESS: Field testing an assistive technology toolkit for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 1-12. Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2006). Moving toward solutions: Assistive and learning technology for all students. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education 33, 8-24. Smith, S.J. (2000). Graduate student mentors for technology success. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 167-182. Teeters, J. (2001). Teach with style: A comprehensive system for teaching adults. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. Todis, B. J. (1996). Tools for the task? Perspectives on assistive technology in education settings. Journal of Special Education Technology,13(2), 49-61. Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2007). A model for preparing special and general education pre-service teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58 (5), 440-455. Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Wyland, S., Dorsch, N., Zurita, L., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2006). Project ACCEPT: Preparing pre-service special and general educators for inclusive education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29 (4), 209-212. Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Zurita, L. M., Lynch, K., Zurita, B., Smith, T., & Chandler, L. K. (2008). The effectiveness of using video tutorials to teach pre-service educators to use assistive technologies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, 4, 31-45. Wojcik, B. W., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Watts, E. H., & Parette, P. (2004). Assistive technology outcomes in a teacher education curriculum. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 1, 21-32.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge and thank those who made this research possible; in particular, the funding agencies. Components of this project were funded in part by: The Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities (Project ACCEPT), Northern Illinois University Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center, Northern Illinois University Committee on the Improvement of Undergraduate Education, U.S. Department of Education (PT-3 grant directed by Cory Cummings), and the Northern Illinois University Foundation. In addition, the authors would like to thank Tom Smith and Heather Johnson for assistance with data analyses and Leslie and Brian Zurita for their hard work on creating the video tutorials.