Emerging trends and advancements in technology allow educators to develop dynamic learning environments to support their students’ academic and behavioral needs. The study documented the lived experience of special educators using assistive technology (AT) to support behavioral challenges in students with disabilities and the environmental factors that support educator’s use of AT. Fifteen educators who worked in K–12 schools participated in semi-structured interviews and completed a researcher-developed Assistive Technology Treatment Integrity Checklist (ATTIC). This exploratory study indicated that participants had limited experiences using AT to target challenging behaviors. However, participants used technology to support evidence-based interventions or customized instructional technologies to manage students’ needs. Our findings also indicated that school structures impacted AT-related attitudes and eventual use. The findings from this study add to the literature on technology supports for students with challenging behaviors. Implications for practice and future research are also discussed.
BlackhurstA. E. (2005). Perspectives on applications of technology in the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 175–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593622
2.
BouckE. C. (2016). A national snapshot of assistive technology for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416633330
3.
BouckE. C.LongH. (2020). Assistive technology for students with disabilities: An updated snapshot. Journal of Special Education Technology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420914624
4.
BouckE. C.FlanaganS. (2016). Exploring assistive technology and post-school outcomes for students with severe disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11(8), 645–652. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2015.1029537
5.
BouckE.MaedaY.FlanaganS. (2012). Assistive technology and students with high incidence disabilities: Understanding the relationship through the NLTS2. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511401037
6.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R. (2003). Assistive technology for people with disabilities. Allyn & Bacon.
7.
ChauhanS. (2017). A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education, 105(24), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005
8.
CourtadC. A.BouckE. C. (2012). Technology and students with emotional and behavioral disorders. In RotatoriA. F.ObiakorF. E.BakkenJ. P. (Eds.), Behavioral disorders: Practice concerns and students with EBD (pp. 179–205). Emerald.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Sage.
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
11.
CummingT. M. (2013). Mobile learning as a tool for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Combining evidence-based practice with new technology. Beyond Behavior, 23(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/107429561302300104
EdyburnD. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291308000107
14.
EdyburnD. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–24.
15.
FinkA. (2009). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (4th ed.). Sage.
16.
FlowerA. (2014). The effect of iPad use during independent practice for students with challenging behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9206-8
17.
FreemanJ.YellM. L.ShrinerJ. G.KatsiyannisA. (2019). Federal policy on improving outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Past, present, and future. Behavioral Disorders, 44(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918814423
HaydonT.HawkinsR.DenuneH.KimenerL.MccoyD.BashamJ. (2012). A comparison of iPads and worksheets on math skills of high school students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders, 37(4), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203700404
20.
HirschS. E.AlvesK. D.DunnM. (2019). Integrating technology for students with emotional and behavioral disorders to promote engagement. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(2), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219837638
21.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).
22.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17. (1997).
23.
IsraelM. (2019). Use assistive and Instructional technologies. In McLeskeyJ.MaheadyL.BillingsleyB.BrownellM. T.LewisT. J. (Eds.), High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms (pp. 264–278). Routledge.
24.
JonesV.Hinesmon-MatthewsL. (2014). Effective assistive technology consideration and implications for diverse students. Computers in the Schools, 31(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.932682
25.
KaczorowskiT. L.HasheyA. I.Di CesareD. M. (2018). An exploration of multimedia supports for diverse learners during core math instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418781298
26.
LegrisP.InghamJ.ColleretteP. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4
27.
Lewis-PalmerT.ToddA. W.HornerR. H.SugaiG.SampsonN. K. (2003). Individual student systems evaluation tool (ISSET). Educational and Community Supports.
28.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
29.
LloydB. P.BruhnA. L.SutherlandK. S.BradshawC. P. (2019). Progress and priorities in research to improve outcomes for students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 44(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918808485
30.
McMahonD. D.WalkerZ. (2019). Leveraging emerging technology to design an inclusive future with universal design for learning. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.639
31.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
32.
MoustakasC. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE.
33.
OkM. W.RaoK. (2019). Digital tools for the inclusive classroom: Google Chrome as assistive and instructional technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419841546
34.
PetersenA. (2015). Perspectives of special education teachers on general education curriculum access. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915604835
35.
The QIAT Leadership Team. (2012). QIAT—quality indicators for assistive technology—guiding the provision of quality AT services. Qiat.org. https://qiat.org/
36.
QuinnB. S.BehrmannM.MastropieriM.ChungY.BauschM. E.AultM. J. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools?Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340902400101
37.
RoulstonK. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Sage.
38.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
39.
SatsangiR.MillerB.SavageM. N. (2019). Helping teachers make informed decisions when selecting assistive technology for secondary students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63(2), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2018.1483314
40.
SmithS. J.OkoloC. (2010). Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit?Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300404
Van LaarhovenT.MunkD.ChandlerL.ZuritaL.LynchK. (2012). Integrating 1ssistive technology into teacher education programs: Trials, tribulations, and lessons learned. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 8(1), 32–47.
44.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
45.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y. L.ChanF. K. Y.HuP. J.-H.BrownS. A. (2011). Extending the two-stage information systems continuance model: Incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00373.x
46.
WongM. (2018). Guiding teachers of students with visual impairments to make assistive technology decisions: Preliminary experience using the Wisconsin assistive technology initiative. Support for Learning, 33(4), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12228
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
