Very few studies have examined how to culturally and linguistically (CL) adapt professional development (PD) programs in assistive technology (AT) for Latinx teachers serving young children with disabilities. The purposes of this article are (a) to present an iterative design of a CL-adapted PD program, (b) to examine the impact of this program on teachers’ use of AT practices to support young children with disabilities in early childhood classrooms, and (c) to evaluate the usefulness of program adaptations through the lens of bilingual Latinx practitioners. The Ecological Validity Model (EVM) was used as a framework for both the development and assessment of the program’s CL adaptations. Quantitative results indicated significant changes in teachers’ AT use pre- to post-intervention, while qualitative findings revealed the program’s alignment with the language, persons, metaphors, and context dimensions of the EVM. In addition, three themes provided rich descriptions of the program’s responsiveness to practitioners and classrooms. This study supports the CL adaptation of AT interventions as an equitable practice, supporting young children across a range of disabilities, cultures, and contexts while empowering the diverse practitioners who serve them.
AponteJ. (2009). Addressing cultural heterogeneity among Hispanic subgroups by using Campinha-Bacote’s model of cultural competency. Holistic Nursing Practice, 23(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HNP.0000343203.26216.c9
2.
BarkleyE.CrossK.MajorC. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
3.
BernalG.BonillaJ.BellidoC. (1995). Ecological validity and cultural sensitivity for outcome research: Issues for the cultural adaptation and development of psychological treatments with Hispanics. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01447045
4.
BingerC.Kent-WalshJ.BerensJ.Del CampoS.RiveraD. (2008). Teaching Latino parents to support the multi-symbol message productions of their children who require AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610802130978
5.
BouckE. (2016). A national snapshot of assistive technology for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420914624
6.
BrowderD. M.JimenezB.MimsP. K.SpoonerV. F.LeeF. A.FlowersC. (2012). The effects of a “tell-show-try-apply” professional development package on teachers of students with severe developmental disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(3), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411432650
7.
BurneB.KnafelcV.MelonisM.HeynP. C. (2011). The use and application of assistive technology to promote literacy in early childhood: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 6(3), 207–213. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.522684
8.
ClewellB. C.VillegasA. M. (1998). Increasing the number of teachers of color for urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 31(1), 42–61.
9.
CrowderS. J.BroomeM. E. (2012). A framework to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of intervention research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 34(8), 1002–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945912451656
DunstC. J.BruderM. B.HambyD. W. (2015). Metasynthesis of in-service professional development research: Features associated with positive educator and student outcomes. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(12), 1731–1744. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2306
12.
EricksonK. A. (2017). Comprehensive literacy instruction, interprofessional collaborative practice, and students with severe disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-15-0067
13.
GarcíaO. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Skutnabb-KangasT.PhillipsonR.MohantyA. K.PandaM. (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140–158). Multilingual Matters.
14.
GarrityS.Aquino-SterlingC. R.Van LiewC.DayA. (2018). Beliefs about bilingualism, bilingual education, and dual language development of early childhood preservice teachers raised in a Prop 227 environment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1148113
15.
GayG. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839022000014349
16.
IBM Corp. Released (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. IBM Corp.
17.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1414.
18.
JonesB. A.Peterson-AhmadM.FieldsM.WilliamsN. (2020). Training preservice teachers to match assistive technology to student needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420918337
19.
KasariC.GulsrudA. C.WongC.KwonS.LockeJ. (2010). Randomized controlled caregiver mediated joint engagement intervention for toddlers with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(9), 1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0955-5
20.
KlingnerJ. K.EdwardsP. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.6
21.
KulkarniS. S.ParmarJ. (2017). Culturally and linguistically diverse student and family perspectives of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1346706
22.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2007). Pushing past the achievement gap: An essay on the language of deficit. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(3), 316–323.
23.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). Wiley.
24.
LarsonA. L.CycykL. M.CartaJ. J.Scheffner-HammerC.BaraltM.UchikoshiY.AnZ. G.WoodC. (2020). A systematic review of language-focused interventions for young children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.06.001
25.
LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2012). Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research priorities. Assistive Technology, 24(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2011.648717
26.
LohmannM. J.HoveyK. A.GauvreauA. N.HigginsJ. P. (2019). Using assistive technology tools to support learning in the inclusive preschool classroom. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8(2), 1–16.
27.
Mason-WilliamsL.BettiniE.PeytonD.HarveyA.RosenbergM.SindelarP. T. (2020). Rethinking shortages in special education: Making good on the promise of an equal opportunity for students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419880352
28.
McCordM. S.SotoG. (2004). Perceptions of AAC: An ethnographic investigation of Mexican-American families. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(4), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610400005648
29.
McLeskeyJ.BarringerM. D.BillingsleyB.BrownellM.JacksonD.KennedyM.LewisT.MaheadyL.RodriguezJ.ScheelerM. C.WinnJ.ZieglerD. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.
30.
MertalaP. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs about technology integration in early childhood education: A meta-ethnographical synthesis of qualitative research. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.003
31.
MoirT. (2018). Why is implementation science important for intervention design and evaluation within educational settings?Frontiers in Education, 25(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00061
NoresM.FernandezC. (2018). Building capacity in health and education systems to deliver interventions that strengthen early child development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1419(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13682
OkoloC. M.DiedrichJ. (2014). Twenty-five years later: How is technology used in the education of students with disabilities? Results of a statewide study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341402900101
37.
OttleyJ. R.HanlineM. F. (2014). Bug in ear coaching: Impacts on early childhood educators’ practices and associations with toddlers’ expressive communication. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(2), 90–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815114563614
38.
ParetteH. P.BrothersonM. J. (2004). Family-centered and culturally responsive assistive technology decision making. Infants and Young Children, 17(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-200410000-00008
39.
ParetteH. P.HuerM. B.HourcadeJ. J. (2003). Using assistive technology focus groups with families across cultures. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(4), 429–440.
40.
ParetteH. P.QuesenberryA. C.BlumC. (2010). Missing the boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: A 21st-century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0352-x
41.
QuinnB. S.BehrmannM.MastropieriM.BauschM. E.AultM. J.ChungY. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools?Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340902400101
42.
RipatJ.WoodgateR. (2011). The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation, 6(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.507859
43.
RushD. D.SheldenM. L. (2020). The early childhood coaching handbook (2nd ed.). Paul H. Brookes.
44.
SakashK.ChouV. (2007). Increasing the supply of Latino bilingual teachers for the Chicago public schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(4), 41–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23479110
45.
SatterfieldB. (2016). History of assistive technology outcomes in education. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 10(1), 1–18.
46.
SchifferdeckerK. E.ReedV. A. (2009). Using mixed methods research in medical education: Basic guidelines for researchers. Medical Education, 43(7), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03386.x
47.
ShentonA. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.
48.
SimpsonL. A.OhK. (2013). Using circle time books to increase participation in the morning circle routine. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(6), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500604
49.
StraussA.CorbinJ. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Sage.
50.
TamakloeD.AgbenyegaJ. S. (2017). Exploring preschool teachers’ and support staff’s use and experiences of assistive technology with children with disabilities. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(2), 29–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.2.04
51.
TondeurJ.Van BraakJ.ErtmerP. A.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
52.
TowerK. (2004). Disability through the lens of culture. Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 2(2–3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J198v02n02_02
53.
TylerN. C.YzquierdoZ.Lopez-ReynaN.Saunders FlippinS. (2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity and the special education workforce: A critical overview. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010301
WeintraubH.WilcoxM. J. (2006). Characteristics of early intervention practitioners and their confidence in the use of assistive technology. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214060260010201
56.
ZabalaJ. (1996). Setting the state for success: Building success through effective use of assistive technology. In Proceedings of the southeast augmentative communication conference (pp. 129–187). United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Birmingham.
