In recent years, the use of iPads® and their applications (apps) in special education has increased with little empirical evidence to support their use by students with disabilities. Educators need a system to select appropriate apps for their students and to provide suggestions to parents who express interest in educational apps. This study sought to test the user friendliness of a prototype rubric designed for screening/evaluating iPad apps intended for educational use by students with disabilities. Eight school practitioners participated in a test to evaluate the usability of a prototype app rubric. A total of nine commercially available iPad apps designed for students with disabilities were evaluated. The usability test showed the rubric was a useful instrument in supporting app selection. Practitioner concerns and recommendations were taken into consideration for improving the functionality of the evaluation rubric for educational iPad apps.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlperS.RaharinirinaS. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47–64.
2.
ArtinoA. R.Jr. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the role of learner experience: An abbreviated review for educational practitioners. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 16(4), 425–439.
3.
AyresK.MechlingL.SansostiF. J. (2013). The use of mobile technologies to assist with life skills/independence of students with moderate/severe intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorders: Considerations for the future of school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 259–271. doi:10.1002/pits.21673
4.
BarnumC. M. (2002). Usability Testing and Research. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
BichelmeyerB.MolendaM. (2006). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Gradual growth atop tectonic shifts. In OreyM.McClendonV. J.BranchR. M. (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 31, 3–32.
7.
BooneR.HigginsK. (2007). The software checklist: Evaluating educational software for use by students with disabilities. Technology in Action, 3, 1–16.
8.
BooneR.HigginsK.WilliamsD. (1997). Supporting content area instruction with videodiscs and multimedia technologies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(5), 302–311.
9.
BouckE. C.ShurrJ. C.TomK.JasperA. D.BassetteL.MillerB. (2012). Fix it with TAPE: Repurposing technology to be assistive technology for students with high-incidence disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 56(2), 121–128.
10.
BrannanJ.WardB. (2011). iOS SDK programming a beginners guide. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
11.
BrockP. A. (1994). Educational technology in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
12.
BryantB. R.SeokS.OkM.BryantD. P. (2012). Individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities use of assistive technology devices in support provision. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(2), 41–57.
13.
CihakD.FahrenkrogC.AyresM.SmithC. (2010). The use of video modeling via a video iPod and a system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors for students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 103–115.
14.
DeubelP. (2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12, 63–90.
15.
DouglasK. H.WojcikB. W.ThompsonJ. R. (2012). Is there an app for that?Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(2), 59–70.
16.
DuffyT. (2012). Programming with Mobile Applications: Android, IOS, and Windows Phone 7. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
17.
DumasJ. S.RedishJ. C. (1999). A Practical Guide to Usability Testing (revised Ed.). Portland, OR: Intellect Books.
FloresM.MusgroveK.RennerS.HintonV.StrozierS.FranklinS.HillD. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 1–11.
HartmannD. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver agreement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103–116.
22.
HerbertM. (2010). The iPad breaking new ground in special education. District Administration, 46(10), 16–16.
23.
HigginsK.BooneR.WilliamsD. (2000). Evaluating educational software for special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 109–115.
24.
KagoharaD. M.SigafoosJ.AchmadiD.O'ReillyM.LancioniG. E. (2012). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorders to check the spelling of words. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 304–310.
25.
KassimA.KochtanekT. (2003). Designing, implementing, and evaluating an educational digital library resource. Online Information Review, 27(3), 160–168.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
28.
McNaughtonD.LightJ. (2013). The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 107–116.
29.
MurrayO. T.OlceseN. R. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not?. TechTrends, 55(6), 42–48.
30.
NewtonD. N.DellA. (2011). Mobile devices and students with disabilities: What do best practices tell us?Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(3), 47–49.
31.
OrrK. L.GolasK. D.YaoK. (1994, Winter). Storyboard development for interactive multimedia training. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 6(3), 18–29.
32.
ParetteH. P.SchererM. (2004). Assistive technology use and stigma. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 217–226.
33.
ParkO.EtgenM. (2000). Research-based principles for multimedia presentation. In SpectorM. (Ed.), Integrated and Holistic Perspectives on Learning, Instruction, and Technology (pp. 197–212). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34.
PenningtonR. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction for teaching academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 239–248.
QuinlanA. M. (2006). A complete guide to rubrics: Assessment made easy for teachers, K–College. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
37.
SegalA. (2011). Do gestural interfaces promote thinking? Embodied interaction: Congruent gestures and direct touch promote performance in math. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York, NY.
38.
SeoY.WooH. (2010). The identification, implementation, and evaluation of critical user interface design features of computer-assisted instruction programs in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 55, 363–377.
39.
ShahN. (2011). Special education pupils find learning tool in iPad applications. Education Week, 30(22), 1–16.
40.
ShellyG. B.GunterG. A.GunterR. E. (2011). Teachers Discovering Computers: Integrating Technology in a Connected World (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.
41.
ShererM.PierceL.ParedesS.KisackyL.IngersollB.SchreibmanL. (2001). Enhancing conversation skills in children with autism via video technology: Which is better, “self” or “other” as a model?Behavior Modification, 25, 140–158.
42.
SigafoosJ.LancioniG. E.O'ReillyM. F.AchmadiD.StevensM.RocheL. (2013). Teaching two boys with autism spectrum disorders to request the continuation of toy play using an iPad-based speech-generating device. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 923–930.
43.
SmithB. R.SpoonerF.WoodC. L. (2013). Using embedded computer-assisted explicit instruction to teach science to students with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 433–443. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.10.010
44.
SternbergR. J. (2003). Cognitive Psychology. Athens, Greece: Atrapos.
45.
StoreyK.MinerC. (2011). Systematic instruction of functional skills for students and adults with disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
46.
Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, 29 U. S. C. § 2201 et seq.
47.
Taber-DoughtyT.MillerB.ShurrJ.WilesB. (2013). Portable and accessible video modeling: Teaching a series of novel skills within school and community settings. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(2), 147–163.
48.
TammaroM. T.JeromeM. K. (2012). Does the app fit? Using the Apps Consideration Checklist. In AultM. J.BauschM. E. (Eds.), Apps for all students: A teacher's desktop guide (pp.23–31). Reston, VA: Exceptional Innovations
Valentino-DevriesJ. (2010, Oct 13). Using the iPad to connect: Parents, therapists use Apple tablet to communicate with special needs kids. Wall Street Journal. p. B6.
51.
van der MeerL.KagoharaD.AchmadiD.GreenV. A.O'ReillyM. F.LancioniG. E. (2011). Teaching functional use of an iPod-based speech-generating device to individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(3), 1–11.
52.
WalkerH. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of apps for mobile devices. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(4), 59–63.
53.
WellsJ.LewisL. (2006). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2005 (NCES 2007–020). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED494307.pdf.
54.
WoodwardJ.RiethH. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503–536.
