User experience, defined as perceptions and responses from product interaction, can influence educational technology efficacy. Software-generated digital and physical Individualized Education Program (IEP) documents represent a form of special education technology unexamined through a user experience framework. As students with disabilities who are Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) experience disproportionate educational outcomes, this study surveyed IEP user experiences of 54 parents/guardians and teachers of BIPOC students with disabilities across seven factors: accessibility, credibility, desirability, findability, usability, usefulness, and value. Three-cycle holistic qualitative analysis showed parents/guardians found IEPs lacking across all factors. While teachers shared similar negative perceptions, they described greater value and usefulness and did not include credibility. Findings underscore IEPs’ limited functionality as user-centered tools, highlighting the need for digital interface redesign. The discussion offers implications for software developers and special educators to improve IEP product user experience and advance technology-driven solutions toward more equitable student outcomes.
AlvarezR.VasquezE.MayorgaC.FeasterD.MitraniV. (2006). Increasing minority research participation through community organization outreach. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 28(5), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945906287215
BalA.SullivanA. L.HarperJ. (2014). A situated analysis of special education disproportionality for systemic transformation in an urban school district. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513507754
4.
BanksJ.GonzálezT.MuellerC.PachecoM.ScottL. A.TrainorA. A. (2023). Reflexive quality criteria: Questions and indicators for purpose-driven special education qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231168106
5.
BenayMegan R. (2024). An exploration of the persistent educational inequities experienced by BIPOC students with disabilities. Doctoral Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University Repository.
6.
BerniA.BorgianniY. (2021). Making order in user experience research to support its application in design and beyond. Applied Sciences, 11(15), Article 6981. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156981
7.
BrayL. E.RussellJ. L. (2018). The dynamic interaction between institutional pressures and activity: An examination of the implementation of IEPs in secondary inclusive settings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718756189
8.
ConnellyJ. (2021). Interrogating the special education identification process for black Indigenous students of color. Multiple Voices: Disability, Race, and Language Intersections in Special Education, 21(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.56829/2158-396X-21.1.78
9.
Family Educational RightsPrivacy Act of1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (1974). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
FitzgeraldJ.WatkinsM. W. (2006). Parents’ rights in special education: The readability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200407
12.
FronemannN.PeissnerM. (2014, 26–30 October). User experience concept exploration: User needs as a source for innovation. [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Helsinki, Finland, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2641203
13.
GoodmanJ. F.BondL. (1993). The individualized education program: A retrospective critique. The Journal of Special Education, 26(4), 408-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302600405
14.
GrindalT.SchifterL. A.SchwartzG.HehirT. (2019). Racial differences in special education identification and placement: Evidence across three states. Harvard Educational Review, 89(4), 525–553. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.4.525
15.
GubaE. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research & Development, 29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
16.
HaaksmaT. R.de JongM. D. T.KarremanJ. (2018). Users’ personal conceptions of usability and user experience of electronic and software products. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 61(2), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc.2018.2795398
HvannbergE. Þ.LárusdóttirM. K.BlandfordA.GulliksenJ.VermeerenA. P. O. S.LawE. L.-C.RotoV.ObristM.HoonhoutJ.Väänänen-Vainio-MattilaK. (2010). User experience evaluation methods: Current state and development needs. [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (pp. 521–530). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868973
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
20.
IrwinV.WangK.JungJ.KesslerE.TezilT.AlhassaniS.FilbeyA.DiligR.Bullock MannF. (2024). Report on the condition of education 2024 (NCES 2024-144). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2024144
21.
JenkinsM. W. (1986). Effect of a computerized individual education program (IEP) writer on time savings and quality. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(3), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264348700800306
22.
JungA. W. (2011). Individualized education programs (IEPs) and barriers for parents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, 19(3), 21–25. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ955935.pdf
23.
KarilaK.AlasuutariM. (2012). Drawing partnership on paper: How do the forms for individual educational plans frame parent-teacher relationship?International Journal about Parents in Education, 6(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.54195/ijpe.18192
24.
KearlB. (2019). Special education as neoliberal property: The racecraft, biopolitics, and immunization of disability. Educational Studies, 55(4), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2019.1630126
KurthJ. A.McQuestonJ. A.RupparA. L.ToewsS. G.JohnstonR.McCabeK. M. (2019). A description of parent input in IEP development through analysis of IEP documents. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 57(6), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-57.6.485
Lee-TarverA. (2006). Are individualized education plans a good thing? A survey of teachers’ perceptions of the utility of IEPs in regular education settings. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 263–272.
29.
LoL. (2014). Readability of individualized education programs. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 58(2), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.782532
30.
MadariagaL.NussbaumM.MarañónF.AlarcónC.NaranjoM. (2019). User experience of government documents: A framework for informing design decisions. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.12.005
31.
MargolisH.TruesdellL. A. (1987). Do special education teachers use IEPs to guide instruction?The Urban Review, 19(3), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01111876
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Characteristics of public school teachers. In Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2023/clr_508.pdf
34.
OswalS. K. (2019). Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access steps toward making UX inclusive of users with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication (pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328020.3353957
35.
RossettiZ.RedashA.SauerJ. S.BuiO.WenY.RegensburgerD. (2020). Access, accountability, and advocacy: Culturally and linguistically diverse families’ participation in IEP meetings. Exceptionality, 28(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2018.1480948
36.
RotoV.BraggeJ.LuY.PacauskasD. (2021). Mapping experience research across disciplines: Who, where, when. Quality and User Experience, 6(7), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-021-00047-4
RyanL. B.RuckerC. N. (1986). Computerized vs. noncomputerized individualized education programs: Teachers’ attitudes, time, and cost. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264348600800102
39.
SalasL. (2004). Individualized educational plan (IEP) meetings and Mexican American parents: Let’s talk about it. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532771xjle0303_4
40.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
41.
SandersonK. A.GoldmanS. E. (2022). Factors associated with parent IEP satisfaction. Remedial and Special Education, 44(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325221111571
42.
ShentonA. K. (2005). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-2004-22201
43.
SiyamN.AbdallahS. (2022). A pilot study investigating the use of Mobile technology for coordinating educational plans in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(4), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211033581
44.
SkrticT. M.SaatciogluA.NicholsA. (2021). Disability as status competition: The role of race in classifying children. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 7, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211024398
45.
SladeN.EisenhowerA.CarterA. S.BlacherJ. (2018). Satisfaction with individualized education programs among parents of young children with ASD. Exceptional Children, 84(3), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917742923
46.
SmithS. W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education—from intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299005700102
47.
SmithS. W.KorteringL. J. (1996). Using computers to generate IEPs: Rethinking the process. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264349601300203
48.
StickdornM.LawrenceA.HormessM.SchneiderJ. (2018). This is service doing. O’Reilly.
49.
TrahanA.WolseyJ.ClarkM. (2018). Experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse parents with deaf children during the individualized educational plan process. Psychology, 9(03), 427–459. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.93027
50.
TullisT.AlbertB. (2013). Measuring the user experience: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics (2nd ed.). Elsevier Inc.
51.
WilsonG. L.MichaelsC. A.MargolisH. (2005). Form versus function: Using technology to develop individualized education programs for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340502000204
52.
WolfeK.DuránL. K. (2013). Culturally and linguistically diverse parents’ perceptions of the IEP process: A review of current research. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 2(13), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760301800107
