"The
options for creating engaging technology are limitless as we begin using
the resources in front of us."
|
|
LITERATURE
REVIEW: Connections to Best Practice
National Education
Association. (1998). Handywoman's special, NEA Today, 17(3), 3-4.
The article entitled Handywoman's Special (NEA Today, 1998) is inspiring
to anyone hoping to learn or create a technologically rich environment
for their students. Michele DePrille is a special education teacher at
Midwestern Intermediate Unit in New Castle, Pennsylvania. When searching
for software for her students with profound mental and physical disabilities,
she was frustrated to find that there weren't any which were age appropriate.
Most of the software she found was based on preschool level, yet preschool
software, such as Sticky Bear and Big Bird certainly was of no interest
to her junior high students.
While watching one of her students interact with a program, she noted
that the program was created by using Hyperstudio. Michele then took matters
into her own hands and created a program for her students. The program
used a digital camera and Hyperstudio. Michele took pictures of her own
students and then incorporated buttons which students could easily click
on for responses. The program encouraged students to get to know each other
visually and was stimulating to the students because they were able to
see themselves. Michele went a step further by creating a Halloween program
which allowed students to use their voices to be scary. Michele reported
that learning to use Hyperstudio was easy. She had no manual or instructions,
just some time playing with it.
The options for creating engaging technology are limitless as we begin
using the resources in front of us. We have found similar results to Michele.
When materials are adapted appropriately, all students can learn and be
engaged successfully with technology.
|
"The
mentors assisted us in the training aspect of the software so that all
students had an opportunity to use the technology."
|
|
Technology is underused
in special education. CEC Today. July 1997. Vol. 4. No.1
An article published in CEC Today (1997) newsletter reaffirmed for us the
need to address how technology is being used in special education. This
article highlighted results of a study completed by Macro International,
Inc. and the Office of Special Education Programs. Surprisingly many of
the trends found in the results were similar to trends in regular education.
Overall the study found that the use of technology in special education
is not really extensive or intensive.
One of the first reasons this has occurred is due in part to the lack
of consistent and sustained training and practice special education educators
and aides have received in technology. Often they are only exposed to one-shot
workshops, and there is little time given for how to practice and integrate
the information gained at workshops. Secondly, access to computers seems
to be preventing special educators from using computers. As we have found,
students should have access to computers on a daily basis for at least
thirty minutes a day. Like the adults who are struggling to learn and need
consistent, sustained practice so do the students. However, often labs
are full or schedules prevent consistent times. Furthermore, the older
models seem to be given to the special education teachers as a way to appease
them, however these models lack the capabilities of current models. Finally,
special educators have problems finding appropriate software. In most cases
age and level appropriate software has not been designed to meet the needs
of older students functioning at lower levels. All of these factors contribute
to reasons why technology is being underused in special education.
We both shared similar concerns when the technology arrived at Shepherd
Middle School. By creating a technology mentor program and working together,
Susan was able to learn more about the software we had available at Shepherd
while at the same time brainstorming ways to integrate the software. The
mentors assisted us in the training aspect of the software so that all
students had an opportunity to use the technology. Time is still a major
factor that has been a stumbling block. We have secured a forty-minute
period one day per week and a separate 20-minute block of time on another
day of the week. This allows students at least two days each week in the
computer lab. Granted, this is still not enough, but it has been a step
in the right direction.
|
"Classrooms
and teacher practices of today must continue to strive for a school climate
that benefits all learners."
|
|
Salisbury, C.L.,
Evans, I.M., & Palombaro, M.M. (1997). Collaborative problem-solving
to promote the inclusion of young children with significant disabilities
in primary grades, Exceptional Children, 63(2), 195-209.
This article (Salisbury, Evans, & Palombara, 1997) supported the outcomes
of our project in that we used a form of collaborative problem-solving
(CPS). According to the article, "Collaborative problem-solving involves
an interdependent relationship among two or more people to achieve a common
goal." Based upon this study and its outcomes there were similar parallels
to our project. Although CPS in this article was a formal process in which
students were trained during several sessions, we clearly saw evidence
in our informal use of collaboration.
In the article both teachers and students were trained over several
sessions about CPS. In this case since the CPS centered around the issues
of integrating students with mild to profound disabilities, CPS training
sessions for both teachers and students included the following:
-
The rationale for inclusive schooling practices.
-
A working knowledge of what physical, social and instructional inclusion
might look like.
-
An overview of criteria used to screen potential solutions.
-
Instruction in the 8-step CPS process.
The main ideas included in the CPS process are as follows:
-
Identify the issue: "What's happening here?"
-
Generate all possible solutions: "What can we do?"
-
Screen solutions for feasibility: "What would really work?"
-
Choose a solution to Implement: "Take action"
-
Evaluate the solution: "How did we do? Did we change things?"
The study conducted had issues that were similar to those we faced. The
issues reported upon in the study varied from physical/social, social/emotional,
academic, and staff-related issues. We have faced similar issues in setting
up and monitoring our mentor program. The findings of this study were consistent
with several of the outgrowths of our program. According to the study there
were three major findings. First, the process of CPS eventually became
routine to both teachers and students. Second, adults had to initiate the
process of CPS. Finally, teaching staff felt CPS was an important strategy
for promoting the physical, social, and instructional inclusion of students
with disabilities in their classrooms. As the study continues to report,
their findings had four important implications which we have also seen
as a result of our mentor project. First, the process can be used for solving
physical, social, and instructional challenges of inclusion. Second,
CPS process encourages creativity of staff and students for creating plausible
solutions to real problems. Third, CPS is a part of the current teaching
methods researched today. CPS involves teacher flexibility and shared decision
making. Classrooms and teacher practices of today must continue to strive
for a school climate that benefits all learners. CPS is consistent with
these current methods. Finally, CPS is a great tool to encourage social,
cognitive, and communication goals among students and staff.
Although we did not set out to use the formal CPS steps, we found ourselves
and our students going through a similar process. From the moment we began
the project, it was based upon collaborative efforts to solve the problem
of integrating students with mental and physical impairments into several
of our technology projects so they would also have the experience of using
current technology tools. As we looked back, we realized that we went through
the steps of CPS to create a successful technology mentor program. Furthermore,
as a result of the modeling done by us, we have recognized our students
going through steps of the CPS process as well as they completed the different
technology projects. Both our project and the article defining steps in
CPS have given us a vehicle to use in the future as we begin to integrate
students into the classroom on a more regular basis.
|
