Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
3
6
2
8
3
6
2
2
4.2. Distribution of research methodologies
We classied the research methods into seven types. Fig. 3 indicates that researchers primarily relied on experimental
studies (46%, 12 studies), followed by interviews and questionnaires (19%, 5 studies). The rest of the studies included three
literature reviews, three case studies, one observation, one action research, and one descriptive study.
4.3. Distribution of research outcomes
Fig. 4 indicates that 23 studies (77%) reported positive research outcomes, while three (10%) studies reported neutral
outcomes and four (13%) studies reported negative ones. It should be noted that two kinds of outcomes were reported from
one study. For example, in Chiang and Jacobs (2010), both advantages and challenges were pointed with regard to using
specic software (K-3000) to enhance the self-perceived academic abilities of high school special education students.
Table 2
Analysis of studies which aim to design educational activities with the use of LT.
Study Participants Methodology Learning technology (LT) Outcome
Ari and Inan (2010) 22 University students in Turkey
(hearing impairment; vision
impairment; physical disabilities)
Questionnaire Computer (internet); special software Positive
Chu et al. (2009) Students with mild disabilities
(intellectual disabilities)
Descriptive study A problem-based e-learning (PBeL)
model
Positive
Rodrguez-Fo rtiz et al. (2009) Special educational school students
(autism spectrum disorders and speech
and language disorders)
Experimental study Augmentative and alternative
communication systems (a platform
Positive
Table 3
Analysis of studies which aim to investigate the special education students and teachers affective responses toward LT.
Study Participants Methodology Learning technology (LT) Outcome
Campigotto et al. (2013) Toronto students in grades 7
through 12 (intellectual disabilities;
learning disabilities; autism
spectrum disorders)
Action research iOS devices with the MyVoice
application
Positive; neutral
Dincyurek et al. (2011) Students with orthopedic
impairment (physical disabilities)
Questionnaire Computer assisted program Positive
Kortering, McClannon,
& Braziel (2008)
54 Students with learning
disabilities and 6 students with
emotional or behavioral disorders
Experimental study Computer assisted universal
design for learning
Positive
Tan and Cheung (2008) A 7 year-old child with emotional or
behavioral disorders
Interview and
questionnaire
Computer for collaborative work Positive
Note: Campigotto et al. (2013) and Tan and Cheung (2008) were counted twice because they both fell into two categories of research aims.
75%
14%
11%
Research Aims
1. Evaluang the eect of
LT (21/28)
2. Desgining a LT for
learning (4/28)
3. Invesgang the aect
domain (3/28)
Fig. 2. Distribution of research aims.
G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 36183628 3623
4.4. Distribution of LT use
Fig. 5 shows that the most common use of LT is computer-assisted technology in special education (71%, 20 studies),
followed by specic software (18%, ve studies) and mobile learning (11%, three studies). Among these, there were two
studies with overlapping technologies. For example, one observed cloud computing and augmented reality within the
context of special education (Aziz, Aziz, Yusof, & Paul, 2012), while the other one explored the attitudes of the students
46%
19%
11%
12%
4%
4%
4%
Metholodogy
1. experimental
study(12/26)
2. interview &
quesonnarie(5/26)
3. literature review(3/26)
4. case study(3/26)
5. observaon(1/26)
6. acon research(1/26)
7. discrpve study(1/26)
Fig. 3. Distribution of methodologies.
23
3
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
posive neutral negave
Research Outcomes
Fig. 4. Distribution of research outcomes.
Fig. 5. Distribution of various types of learning technology.
G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 36183628 3624
toward the use of computers and specic software in a writing class (Ari & Inan, 2010). Mobile learning (11%, three studies)
was examined by the fewest number of studies.
4.5. Distribution of the type of disabilities
Only nine types of disabilities are observed in the studies examined in this work, and no health impairments or
developmental delays are included, as shown in Fig. 6. Along the x-axis, 14 can be categorized as mental disabilities, while
the others are physical ones. It should be noted that two or more types of disabilities may be mentioned in one study.
Fig. 6 shows that students with mental disabilities were most often assisted by LT with regard to improving their
academic abilities. For example, in Everhart, Alber-Morgan, and Park (2011), computer games were successfully used to
improve the academic skills special of educational students. However, there were much fewer investigations of the
implementation of LT with physically disabled students, with only 13 times being mentioned in papers), such as Rodrguez,
Saz, and Lleida (2012), which illustrated that LT could effectively help students overcome speech disorders and learn how to
pronounce vocabulary.
5. Discussion
5.1. Most studies focus on effectiveness
As seen in Fig. 2, in the 26 studies examined in this work, 21 of them focused on the effectiveness of using LT with special
education students, a nding that was not reported in previous special education related literature surveys. More
importantly, this result corresponds with surveys of the literature in other technology-assisted learning contexts. For
example, Wuet al. (2012) pointed out that most studies of technology-assisted learning focus on the learning effectiveness of
mobile learning. Vogel, Canon-Bowers, Bowers, Muse, and Wright (2006) also indicated that most studies on game-based
learning focus on its effectiveness.
5.2. Most studies adopted experimental studies, interviews and questionnaires as the primary research methods
Fig. 3 shows that experimental studies were the primary research method (12 out of 26 studies), followed by interviews
(ve). Quantitative approaches were thus favored over qualitative ones. Moreover, the result of only two studies falling into
the categories of case study was in line with Pennington (2010), which indicated that functional relations were found in few
of the single-case designs (Everhart et al., 2011; Garcia et al., 2011).
5.3. The implications of positive and negative outcomes
Fig. 4 shows that 77% of the 26 studies reported positive outcomes. For example, Chiang and Jacobs (2010) pointed out
that teachers and students in the eld of special education expressed positive attitudes toward the use of Computer-based
7
9
6
7
3
4
2
3
1
The Type of Disabilies
Fig. 6. Distribution of the type of disabilities.
G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 36183628 3625
Instruction (CBI) in the classroom. More specically, the teachers stated that this technology was a powerful tool that
enhanced teaching and learning, and that they observed improvements in the performance of the participating students
after integrating technology into their classroom instruction. Campigotto et al. (2013) also highlighted that technology that
is perceived to be fun by students has greater potential to improve motivation in learning contexts. The results indicated the
strong potential for successfully integrating mobile technology within special needs classrooms, with a high-degree of
student support for using mobile devices to enhance classroom experiences.
Although negative outcomes were reported much less than positive ones, it is still important to draw attention to the
challenges of using LT in special education. Campigotto et al. (2013) highlighted the challenges of incorporating such
technologies into the curriculum in terms of practicality, teacher comfort, and the limitations of the devices. Chiang and
Jacobs (2010) also pointed out that time constraints, limited access to the necessary technology, and difculties in managing
the class, were three common barriers encountered when integrating CBI into teaching. These issues worth our attention,
and solutions must be found to overcome the challenges they present.
5.4. Computer-assisted technology is most widely used in special education
As shown in Fig. 5, computer-assisted technology is very often used in special education, and this is attributed to the fact
that LT is benecial for students learning outcomes. For example, Topaloglu and Topaloglu (2009) clearly stated that LT
means that students independent learning is not limited by time and space constraints. In addition, they also noted that LT is
relatively inexpensive, and can be used to apply distance education for special needs students.
5.5. LT is more often applied to mentally disabled students rather than physically disabled ones
As seen in Fig. 6, there were more studies investigating the use of LT with mentally disabled students rather than
physically disabled one. This implies that mentally disable students face more problems with learning target abilities such as
acquiring vocabulary (Rodrguez et al., 2012) and being able to understand geometry (Kiboss, 2012). Instead of helping
physically disabled students to learn academic knowledge with the aid of technology, it is more urgent to help them solve
more practical physical problems, such as the learning how to use active video games as a way to increase their energy levels
(Rowland & Rimmer, 2012).
6. Limitations
Although the present paper provides a systematic reviewof current trends with regard to using LT in special education,
it cannot represent the overall trends in this domain because of the following limitations. Our research only included
research and review articles, and not works fromother sources. In future work, we recommend that the researchers can
include a different range of sources to provide more detailed and representative results, and use other denitions of special
education.
7. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to identify contemporary research directions and trends with regard to the implementation of
LT in the last ve years (20082012). While two previous literature review-based papers provided insights into how LT could
be applied to students with autism spectrum disorders and students with mild and moderate disabilities, they failed to
examine how LT could be used with students with other mental and physical disabilities.
In our study, we conducted a systematic review of the overall research trends regarding the research aims,
methodologies, learning outcomes, types of LT used, andthe types of disabilities in the focal students. The current paper has
the following ve ndings: (a) the research aimof most LT studies examined in this work were to evaluate the effectiveness
of LT; (b) the preferred methodology was experimental studies, followed by interviews and questionnaires; (c) most of the
research outcomes were positive; (d) the most common use of LT was computer-assistive technology; and (e) LT was
mainly used to help the mentally disabled students to acquire academic knowledge. The ndings and implications of this
work are expected to provide both teacher-practitioners and researchers with valuable references and suggestions with
regard to the use of LT in the eld of special education. We also expect that more context-aware ubiquitous learning
research and sensing technology (Hsu, Hwang, Chang, & Chang, 2013; Hung, Hwang, Lin, Wu, & Su, 2013; Liu & Hwang,
2010) will be applied to all types of special education in order to help learners with mental and physical disabilities
worldwide.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Matson, for their comments on an earlier
version of this paper. This work was partially supported by the National Science Council in Taiwan (NSC 102-2511-S-006-
005-MY3, NSC 100-2511-S-006-001-MY2, and NSC 98-2511-S-006-003-MY2).
G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 36183628 3626
References
1
*Ari, I. A., & Inan, F. A. (2010). Assistive technologies for students with disabilities: A survey of access and use in turkish universities. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 9(2), 4045.
*Aziz, K. A., Aziz, N. A. A., Yusof, A. M., & Paul, A. (2012). Potential for providing augmented reality elements in special education via cloud computing. Procedia
Engineering, 41(0), 333339.
*Campigotto, R., McEwen, R., & Demmans Epp, C. (2013). Especially social: Exploring the use of an iOS application in special needs classrooms. Computers &
Education, 60(1), 7486.
*Carmien, S., &Wohldman, E. (2008). Mapping images to objects by young adults with cognitive disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(2), 149157.
Chen, W. C., Shih, Y. C. D., &Liu, G. Z. (2013). Task design and its induced learning effects in a cross-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration. Computer Assisted
Language Learning http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818557
*Chiang, H. Y., & Jacobs, K. (2010). Perceptions of a computer-based instruction system in special education: High school teachers and students views. Work: A
Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation, 37(4), 349359.
*Chu, H. C., Chen, T. Y., Lin, C. J., Liao, M. J., &Chen, Y. M. (2009). Development of an adaptive learning case recommendation approach for problem-based e-learning
on mathematics teaching for students with mild disabilities. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 54565468.
Chiu, L. L., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Effects of printed, pocket electronic, and online dictionaries on high school students English vocabulary retention. Asia-Pacic
Education Researcher http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0065-1
*Dincyurek, S., Arsan, N., & Caglar, M. (2011). The orthopaedically handicapped and computer usage: The case of trnc. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(1), 209215.
Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 491498.
*Everhart, J. M., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Park, J. H. (2011). Effects of computer-based practice on the acquisition and maintenance of basic academic skills for
children with moderate to intensive educational needs. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(4), 556564.
*Ferna ndez-Lo pez, A
. , Rodrguez-Fo rtiz, M. J., Rodrguez-Almendros, M. L., & Martnez-Segura, M. J. (2013). Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to
support students with special education needs. Computers & Education, 61, 7790.
*Fitzgerald, G., Koury, K., & Mitchem, K. (2008). Research on computer-mediated instruction for students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 38(2), 201233.
Florian, L. (Ed.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of special education. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Garcia, T. P., Loureiro, J. P., Gonzalez, B. G., Riveiro, L. N., & Sierra, A. P. (2011). The use of computers and augmentative and alternative communication devices by
children and young with cerebral palsy. Assistive Technology, 23(3), 135149.
*Grant, D. G., & Dieker, L. A. (2011). Listening to black male student voices using web-based mentoring. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 322333.
*Groenewegen, S., Heinz, S., Fro hlich, B., & Huckauf, A. (2008). Virtual world interfaces for special needs education based on props on a board. Computers &
Graphics, 32(5), 589596.
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL
students. Computers & Education, 63(1), 327336.
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., Chang, Y. T., & Chang, C. K. (2013). Effects of video caption modes on English listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition using
handheld devices. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 403414.
Hung, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Lin, Y. F., Wu, T. H., & Su, I. H. (2013). Seamless connection between learning and assessment- applying progressive learning tasks in
mobile ecology inquiry. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 194205.
Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Yin, P. Y., & Chuang, K. H. (2010). A heuristic algorithm for planning personalized learning paths for context aware ubiquitous learning.
Computers & Education, 54(2), 404415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.024
Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., Chu, H. C., & Kinshuk Chen, C. Y. (2012). A context-aware ubiquitous learning approach to conducting scientic inquiry activities in a
science park. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 931947.
Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., &Yang, S. J. H. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Educational Technology &Society, 11(2),
8191.
Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (second ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., OReilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., et al. (2013). Using iPods
1
and iPads
1
in teaching programs for individuals
with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 147156.
*Karal, H. (2009). Evaluating the impact of computer aided learning material on articulation disorders. Egitim Arastirmalari Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 8(34), 5574.
*Karal, H., Kokoc, M., & Ayyldz, U. (2010). Educational computer games for developing psychomotor ability in children with mild mental impairment. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 9961000.
*Kiboss, J. K. (2012). Effects of special e-learning program on hearing-impaired learners achievement and perceptions of basic geometry in lower primary
mathematics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 3159.
*Kortering, L. J., McClannon, T. W., & Braziel, P. M. (2008). Universal design for learning a look at what algebra and biology students with and without high
incidence conditions are saying. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 352363.
Levy, S. T., & Lahav, O. (2012). Enabling people who are blind to experience science inquiry learning through sound-based mediation. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 28(6), 499513.
Liu, G. Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the new blue oceans? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 738747.
Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). A key step to understanding paradigm shifts in e-learning: Towards context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 41(2), E1E9.
Liu, G. Z., Liu, Z. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors.
Computers & Education, 56(1), 6579.
Liu, G. Z., Lo, H. Y., & Wang, H. C. (2013). Design and usability testing of a learning and plagiarismavoidance tutorial systemfor paraphrasing and citing in English:
A case study. Computers & Education http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.011
*Peltenburg, M., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2011). Special education students use of indirect addition in solving subtraction problems up to
100-A proof of the didactical potential of an ignored procedure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(3), 351369.
*Pennington, R. C. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction for teaching academic skills to students with autismspectrumdisorders: A reviewof literature. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(4), 239248.
*Rodrguez-Fo rtiz, M. J., Gonza lez, J. L., Ferna ndez, A., Entrena, M., Hornos, M. J., Pe rez, A., et al. (2009). Sc@ut: Developing adapted communicators for special
education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 13481352.
*Rodrguez, W. R., Saz, O., & Lleida, E. (2012). A prelingual tool for the education of altered voices. Speech Communication, 54(5), 583600.
Rushby, N., & Seabrook, J. (2008). Understanding the past-illuminating the future. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(2), 198233.
Spence, P., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of an English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a
semiconductor manufacturing company in Taiwan. English for Specic Purposes, 32(2), 97109.
*Stodden, R. A., Roberts, K. D., Takahashi, K. P., & Stodden, H. J. N. J. (2012). Use of text-to-speech software to improve reading skills of high school struggling
readers. Procedia Computer Science, 14(0), 359362.
1
Please note that the researchers used * in front of the rst authors last name of each paper to indicate the paper is cited for use in the review study.
G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 36183628 3627
Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors inuencing
learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 11831202.
*Tan, T. S., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Effects of computer collaborative group work on peer acceptance of a junior pupil with attention decit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). Computers & Education, 50(3), 725741.
*Topaloglu, A. O
. , & Topaloglu, M. (2009). Distance education applications in concept acquisition for disabled individuals/special education for handicapped.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 10081011.
Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). Issues and challenges of educational technology research in Asia. The Asia Pacic Education Researcher, 22(2), 215216.
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Canon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulation for learning: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229243.
*Watson, A. H., Ito, M., Smith, R. O., &Andersen, L. T. (2010). Effect of assistive technology in a public school setting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(1),
1829.
*Woodne, B. P., Nunes, M. B., & Wright, D. J. (2008). Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia: Not necessarily the perfect match! Computers &Education,
50(3), 703717.
Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 817827.
Yesilyurt, M. (2011). Meta-analysis of the computer assisted studies in physics: A sample of Turkey. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B-Social and
Educational Studies, 3(1/2), 173182.
G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 36183628 3628