Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2025
Special education teachers' post-pandemic use of assistive technology.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hansen Mary A, Donne Vicki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Assistive technology (AT) enables students with disabilities to access school curricula. Teacher knowledge about AT is a key predictor of use, but common barriers to AT adoption include insufficient preparation, training, and funding. During the COVID-19 pandemic, mandated remote learning led to expanded technological resources and access. Understanding in-service special education teachers' (SETs') current knowledge, training, utilisation, and support for AT in schools in the post-pandemic context is an essential step for improving practice, and the purpose of this paper.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study utilised a researcher-constructed questionnaire administered to SETs in one state. The questionnaire was administered electronically through list-serves, conference attendees, and social media platforms.
RESULTS: Over 100 SETs engaged with the questionnaire. The majority of SETs were highly educated females under 50 years old who taught students across grade levels and with various disabilities. SETs had an average of one college preparatory course and one in-service AT-related training. A strong majority reported comfort using AT. AT devices most utilised were touchscreens (64.9%), standard keyboards (50.7%), and standard mice (47.4%). However, two-thirds of SETs also indicated that at least one of their students utilised AAC and one-third reported daily student use of ergonomic or adaptive chairs.
CONCLUSIONS: Post-pandemic, SETs report comfort with AT and higher use of AT associated with university design for learning (UDL). However, use of specific AT devices including those supporting response, environment, and screen access, remains low. Consistent with pre-pandemic research, SETs report limited use and support for implementing targeted AT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study utilised a researcher-constructed questionnaire administered to SETs in one state. The questionnaire was administered electronically through list-serves, conference attendees, and social media platforms.
RESULTS: Over 100 SETs engaged with the questionnaire. The majority of SETs were highly educated females under 50 years old who taught students across grade levels and with various disabilities. SETs had an average of one college preparatory course and one in-service AT-related training. A strong majority reported comfort using AT. AT devices most utilised were touchscreens (64.9%), standard keyboards (50.7%), and standard mice (47.4%). However, two-thirds of SETs also indicated that at least one of their students utilised AAC and one-third reported daily student use of ergonomic or adaptive chairs.
CONCLUSIONS: Post-pandemic, SETs report comfort with AT and higher use of AT associated with university design for learning (UDL). However, use of specific AT devices including those supporting response, environment, and screen access, remains low. Consistent with pre-pandemic research, SETs report limited use and support for implementing targeted AT.