Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Preservice Teachers Explore Productive Technologies as a Lever for Inclusion of Students With Disabilities

Mon, April 8, 2:15 to 3:45pm, Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel, Floor: Lower Concourse, Sheraton Hall E

Abstract

Connected learning (CL) has been researched in relationship to racial and socioeconomic equity (Reich & Ito, 2017), but limited research exists on using a CL framework with students with disabilities to create pathways for literacy engagement and inclusion. In this session, I explore preservice teachers’ engagements with productive digital technologies in a university course, Academic Literacy and Assistive Technology. By analyzing discussions, digital stories, and student case studies, I look at teacher perceptions of the role and application of productive technologies in inclusive classrooms.

Much of the research on disability and technology is rooted in the field of assistive technology, focusing on specific tools to aid individuals with disabilities with communication and/or accessing or producing information (Johnston, Beard & Carpenter, 2007). While assistive technologies offer great benefits, the CL framework, and more specifically the design principle of production-centered learning, offers possibilities for deeper engagement of students with disabilities. Pandya & Avila (2016) found that most research on technology use in special education focuses on intervention software that lacks a productive element, and urge educators to implement technologies such as blogs, remixed texts, artwork, digital stories and videos with children with disabilities in order to impart greater access and equity.

This practitioner research was conducted with 20 students pursuing dual credentials in both special and general education. The course was taught using a hybrid model that included face-to-face and online sessions for which students collaborated in a Google+ community. The research questions were:

How do participants’ perceptions of and comfort with technology change over the course of the semester?
How do participants select and use technologies with their students, and what variables impact implementation?

Data sources included a survey, online and face-to-face discussions, Google + posts, digital stories and projects, field notes, and course assignments.

Using thematic analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2014), I analyzed how participants engaged in digital production, and the tools they selected to use with their students. Findings showed increased comfort with productive digital tools such as Canva, Storybird, Make Beliefs Comix, Animoto; as well as deeper conceptual understandings of how productive technologies might benefit their students. However, for the case study project each participant selected a tool that addressed a need of their student, and none chose the productive technologies introduced in class. Five students chose the voice typing feature on Google Docs, and other students selected math tools, text readers, social skill apps, and the skill-based programs Language Live and IXL. While these tools carry instructional value, they lack a productive and creative element. Since many public schools continue to view literacy as skill-based and see the role of special education as remediation and intervention, participants may have felt constricted in their settings. During the session, I will describe findings and implications in more detail with specific examples.

As schools strive to meet the needs of students with disabilities, preservice teachers need exposure to pedagogical strategies that support diverse learners. This research explores the potentials and challenges for using productive technologies to create inclusive classrooms.

Author