Secondary Special Education Teachers' Usage of Technology for Instruction

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Secondary Special Education Teachers' Usage of Technology for Instruction
Physical Description:
1 online resource (118 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Steinberg, Mary Anne
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Special Education, Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies
Committee Chair:
Lane, Holly B
Committee Members:
Gagnon, Joseph Calvin
Mccray, Erica Djwan
Leite, Walter

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
disabilities -- secondary -- technology
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary special education teachers are using technology for instruction.  Scott’s (1981) Rational Perspective served as the theoretical perspective for this study. A survey was used to gather data pertaining to how secondary special education teachers were using technology for instruction and what they were asking their students to use for learning.  Additionally, participants were asked to report how they were meeting the International Society for Technology in Education’s Performance Indicators for Teachers. Participants included 311randomly selected high school special education teachers from across the United States. The survey instrument was mailed to each participant at his/her school site. The results of descriptive data reveal that secondary special education teachers are using for technology for instruction and asking their student to use technology for learning. In addition to this they are also meeting the ISTE Performance Indicators for Teachers. Multiple logistic regression revealed that factors such as teaching setting, school context, ISTE performance indicators for teachers,what region of the United Sates the teachers currently lived and worked in,years of teaching experience, and primary disability of the students they taught are not  factors that were associated with high or low technology usage.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Mary Anne Steinberg.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Lane, Holly B.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID:
UFE0044436:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 TECHNOLOGY FOR INSTRUCTION By MARY ANNE STEINBERG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Mary Anne Steinberg

PAGE 3

3 To my family with love

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first and foremost like to thank my husband Roger for his belief in my ability to pursue this degree and for his support through the entire process. Without his constant encouragement I would have given up on this dream long ago. Next, I would like to thank my daughters, Sydney and Victoria, for being my homework buddies, my study partners, my editors, an d for loving me through it all. I truly appreciate their understanding that their mother suddenly became a student (again) instead of just being their mom. To my cheerleaders, Mom and Donita, you were both always so encouraging and supportive, thank you. mantras held me together more than once. To my committee members Erica McCray, Joe Gagnon, and Walter Leite for their expertise, input, and guidance, thank you so much. To my Project LIT ERACY cohort, Project LIBERATE coworkers, Sungur and all of the teachers and doctoral students who were willing to help I truly appreciate your time and effort. And of course all of my former students, thank you for allowing me to be a part of your educati ons. Finally, to Holly Lane, thank you for taking a chance on me.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 11 Theoretical Perspective ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13 Educational Standards Reform and the Rational Perspective ................................ ................. 14 Standards for Technol ogy in Education ................................ ................................ ................. 16 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 18 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 19 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 21 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 22 Current Perspectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 23 How Teachers Have Students Use Technology ................................ .............................. 23 ................................ ............................... 26 ................................ ................................ .......................... 28 Barriers to Technology Integration ................................ ................................ ................. 30 Interpreting Fi ndings in the Context of the NETS*T Standards ................................ ............ 36 Standard 1: Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity ................................ 37 Standard 2: Design and Develop Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 37 Standard 3: Model Digital Age Work and Learning ................................ ....................... 37 Sta ndard 4: Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility ........................ 38 Standard 5: Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership ................................ .......... 38 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 41 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 41 Participan ts and Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 42 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 42 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 42 Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 43 Materials and Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ 43 Pre Field Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 44

PAGE 6

6 Field Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 Survey Implementation and Data Collection ................................ ................................ .. 45 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 46 4 RE SULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 52 Description of Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 53 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 70 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 71 Summary and Interpretations of Findings ................................ ................................ .............. 72 Research Question1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 73 Re search Question 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 77 Research Question 3: What Factors are Associated with Technology Usage for Instruction? ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 82 Implications for Policy and Practice ................................ ................................ ....................... 83 Implications for Future Research ................................ ................................ ............................ 86 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 88 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 89 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD MATERIALS ................................ .......................... 92 Survey Cover Letter with Consent ................................ ................................ ......................... 96 Focus Group Protocol and Expert Review Protocol ................................ ............................... 97 Focus Group Invite Letter ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 100 B FINAL SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 101 C COMPLETE LIST OF VARIABLES USED FOR ANALYSIS IN RESEARCH QUESTION 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 109 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 112 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 118

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 54 4 2 Professional preparation and experience ................................ ................................ ........... 54 4 3 Current teaching assignments ................................ ................................ ............................ 55 4 4 Current scho ol context ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56 4 5 Technologies secondary special education teachers use for instruction. ........................... 58 4 6 Reasons secondary special educat ion teachers cite for never using technology devices or hardware for instruction. ................................ ................................ ................... 59 4 7 Technology tools secondary special education teachers are using for instruction. ........... 59 4 8 Reasons secondary special education teachers cite for never using technology software or tools for instruction. ................................ ................................ ........................ 60 4 9 What technologies second ary special education teachers are asking their students to use for learning in school. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 60 4 10 Results for ISTE NETS*T Standards 1 4. ................................ ................................ ......... 62 4 11 Cluster analysis results ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 65 4 12 Possible factors associated with level of technology used by teachers for instruction. ..... 66

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Disser tation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy TECHNOLOGY FOR INSTRUCTION By Mary Ann e Steinberg August 2012 Chair: Holly B. Lane Major: Special Education The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary special education teachers are using techno (1981) Rational Perspective served as the theoreti cal perspective for this study. A survey was used to gather data pertaining to how secondary special education teachers were using technology for instruction and what they were asking their students to use for learning. Additionally, participants were ask ed to report how they were meeting the Participants included 311 randomly selected high school special education teachers from across the United States. The survey ins trument was mailed to each participant at his/her school site. The results of descriptive data reveal that most secondary special education teachers are using technology for instruction and asking their student s to use technology for learning. In addition many are also meeting the ISTE Performance Indicators for Teachers. Multiple logistic regression revealed that factors such as teaching setting, school context, familiarity with ISTE performance indicators for teachers, what region of the United Sates th e teachers currently lived

PAGE 9

9 and worked in, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of the students they taught were not associated with high or low technology usage. This study revealed that not only are general educators using technology for instruction but that special education students are also experiencing classroom environments where technology is being used. Furthermore, secondary special education teachers are utilizing technology to meet ISTE NETS*T. Unfortunately, none of the factors analyzed (teaching setting, school context, ISTE stand ards region of US teachers lived and worked in years of teaching experience, and prim ary disability of stud ents taught ) in this study were able to demonstrate an association with whether teachers were high or low technology users.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Technology has become ubiquitous in modern society, especially among the younger associated techn ologies), are often viewed by society and researchers to be the most technologically savvy generation to date. America n teen data trends reported by t he Pew Research Center (2011) documented 69% of teens surveyed reported owning at least one personal comp uter ( e.g. desktop or laptop). In addition, 75% percent of those surveyed stated they owned cellular telephones and 79% owned a portable MP3 music player. Additionally, Wilson (2010) reported that 93% of teens, ages 12 17, use the Internet. These findin gs shed light on the growth of technological usage by teenagers in this country. Chances are great that the number of teenage users has increased since these trend data were published, due to the emergence of newer technologies (e.g., tablet computers, e R eaders, and cell phones with keyboards) and applications, such as blogs or social networking sites. A Kaiser Foundation report (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010) estimated that 8 to 18 year olds in this country are using electronic media for approximately seven and a half hours in an average day Of this time almost 90 minutes is spent using a computer for purposes other than schoolwork and over 70 minutes a day is spent playing video games. Students at the time of the Kaiser report were watching TV for over four hours per day and spending over two hours listening to music. Both the Pew and Kaiser reports confirm that adolescents are, in fact, using technology for many different purposes. The world is changing as newer, smaller, and more effective techno logies become a part of our daily lives. Many drivers rely on Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation systems to tool around new cities; cell phones are used to make calls, send text messages, take pictures, and

PAGE 11

11 check emails. Reliance on technologies i s greater than any other time in history and the integration of technology affects lives both personally and professionally. According to the 2009 Horizon Report published by The New Media Consortium, increasing globalization is affecting the way we wor k, collaborate, and communicate. Individuals and the w ork they do are no longer place bound. It is now common practice in business and higher education to work, collaborate, and communicate with people from around the globe synchronously, as well as asyn chronously, using technology. Technological advances such as video conferencing, instant messaging, course management tools, and shared filing systems simplify collaboration. The workplace as we know it is evolving as global communication networks become commonplace (Selfe & Selfe, 2008). The next section of this chapter will (a) review background information pertaining to how the theoretical perspective of this research study will be discussed, (c ) a review of standards in education, (d) a statement of the problem, and (e) the purpose of the study will be reviewed. Background As the above research shows, adolescents are utilizing technology for communication and entertainment. Meanwhile, the adul ts in their lives are utilizing technology both professionally and personally. In 2009, Project Tomorrow surveyed approximately 300,000 students in order to determine how technology is being used (or not used) in education to drive student achievement, edu cational productivity, and teacher effectiveness. The students surveyed stated that there exists a digital disconnect between the technologies they use in school and what tools they need access to in order to be prepared to compete in a 21st Century econom y. The students stated that they wanted to be able to access emerging collaboration and communication tools to create and personalize networks to aid them on their educational journey. They also wanted to be able to

PAGE 12

12 take their learning beyond the walls of the traditional classroom, and to rea ch out to the global community via online resources sired to have access to digital tools and media (e.g. videos, blogs, wikis, virtual reality) that could expand thei r learning experiences. In 2010, Project Tomorrow surveyed over 35,000 teachers, 2,000 librarians, and 3,500 based on the trends found in the prior student da ta (Project Tomorrow, 2009) shared above. The Project Tomorrow survey revealed that 96% of teachers and 99% of administrators were using communication tools to connect with parents and peers. Two thirds of teachers were also using school portals to upload class information in order to keep students and parents informed about homework, grades, and class activities. The teachers surveyed reported that they used technology most often for assigning homework or having students practice basic skills (58%), creati ng graphic organizers (51%) and conducting research (47%). Conversely, only 34% used technology to set student standards, 32% used technology for collaboration purposes, and 16% of the teachers used technology to track achievement and provide feedback to s tudents. Additionally, over 25% of the teachers stated that they lacked the skills to effectively leverage these devices for instructional purposes with their students. In 2001, Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck reported similar findings when the data they coll ected from qualitative interviews and surveys from teachers and students demonstrated that there is a lack of technology usage among teachers in clas srooms, labs, and media centers While educators are making strides with technology integration, there appe ars to remains a substantial disconnect between what the work world requires, what stude nts desire for their education and what is currently happening in classrooms. Historically, education has relied on

PAGE 13

13 the implementation of standards to serve as the impe tus for new educational initiatives In the following section, a brief review of the research on how standards influence instruction is provided, along with a review of the International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Teachers. Theoretic al Perspective Scott (1981) stated that organizational structures, such as schools, are adaptive organisms that are shaped in reaction to the characteristics and commitments of the participants who are in the organization as well as by external forces or e nvironment. These organizations serve to icient, and managed by experts According to Scott collectively oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibiti The Rational Perspective (Scott, 1981) assumes that organizations, in this case schools, are in activities to meet those goals. The Rational Perspective has also been referred to by other terms, such as rational system perspective, rational theory, and rational systems theory ( Barnard, 1938; L awrence & Lorsch, 1967; Ogawa & Bossert, 1995; Oga wa Crowsen & Goldring, 1999). Governments can set a goal to reduce the number of homicides committed using guns and then enact legislation limiting or banning handguns to meet that goal eping their current clientele. The rational systems the selection of the goals, but in their implementation as well. These goals provide a purpose and a basis for determining other elements of the organization, w hich in turn aid i n the adoption of technologies and resources to meet those goals (Ogawa et al., 2003).

PAGE 14

14 In the case of school goals, the desired end product is to develop students in ways that will help them one day become productive members in society In order to achieve this goal Taylor (1911) stated that the contributions of the employe es in the organization in the case of sc hools, the teachers in the schools who are responsi ble for teaching the curriculum m ust be aligned with the greater interest of the organization. The specific goals or standards used by the schools provide unambiguous criteria for selectin g activities to achieve the goal of the organization ( i.e., school); they also guide the decision making process es of the organization itself, f rom what needs to be purchased to who needs to be hired, and they help determine where needs or concerns are th e greatest. The more general the goals, the more difficult it is to design an organization to pursue those goals (Ogawa et al., 2003 ; Scott, 1981 ). Rational system theorists ( Barnard, 1938; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Ogawanda et al., 1995; Ogawanda et al., 1 999; Scott, 1981 ) stress that an organization, such a school or educational system, needs not only goal specificity but also formalization of the goals. By formalizing the goals, the organization provides explicit criteria for selecting activities. Formal ization can also be seen as an attempt to make behavior more predictable by regulating that behavior and standardizing it. S tandards or goals should guide what sho uld be done by an organization such as a school. Ogawa et al. (2003) states that the ration al perspective aligns with the concept of using curriculum standards as a tool to aid school reform efforts. The following section will examine how educational standards have been used in the past to standardize education and how technology has been integr ated into these standards. Educational Standards Reform and the Rational Perspective According to Ogawa, Martinez Flores, and Scribner (2003), standards offer teachers, principals, and students a clear and consistent guide for learning. Standards also pro vide goals

PAGE 15

15 that can enhance the coordination of instr uction and curriculum in schools. Those who support the use of standards based instruction state that curriculum standards serve as a guide for teachers in that they provide a common sequence of targets at which to aim instruction. This may lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness of classroom instruction (Cohen, 1996; Darling Hammond, 1997; Elmore, 1990; Rowan 1990). According to Berger (2000), by creating standards and establishing what content is to be covered, teachers are better able to ensure that their classroom instruction supports and addresses the essential content components. During the 1980s, many states developed statewide standardized testing as part of an effort to use student perform ance data to inform decisions about graduation and accountability at school and district levels (Swanson & Stevenson, 2002). By the 1990s, minimum levels of competency were replaced by high standards for all students or standards based reform. These reform s included a new focus on higher order thinking, challenging subject matter and application of abstract knowledge to solve problems (McLaughlin & Sheppard, 1995). Standards based reform aims to improve student learning by changing core academic content an d pedagogical practices in the classroom. Standards based reforms can be defined as the educational practice that specifies instructional techniques for the classroom and implements a high standards curriculum. It integrates policy from state and local ag encies with the activities that go on in classrooms (Swanson & Stevenson, 2002). More recently many states have begun the process of adopting the Common Core Standards. The Core Standards define the knowledge and skills that students should obtain while at tending school in grades K 12 in the subject areas of Language Arts and Mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

PAGE 16

16 According to Ogawa et al. ( 2003 ) based curriculum, st andards based reforms affected instruction in three ways: (a) teachers used the standards to determine instructional goals; (b) t eachers revised their curricula to align with standards; and (c) teachers altered the organization of their instructional time to devote more time for core concepts. Using standards to set instructional goals can also aid schools in the adoption of appropriate technologies staff and resources to meet those goals (Scott, 1998). Standards for Technology in Education Just as there are national standards for reading, mathematics, science and social studies, there are also national standards for technology. Many states and districts around the country have adopted technology standards and instructional technology to better prepare the ir students for life and work in the 21st Century. The term i nstructional technology refers to the theory and practice of development, design, management, utilization and evaluation of the processes and resources necessary for learning (Seels & Richey, 19 94). Instructional technology has always been a part of American education from the days of teachers using chalk boards to the evolution into dry erase boards to what is now commonplace in many classrooms, the digital or interactive white board. Filmstrip p rojectors were replaced by videotapes and digital video discs (DVDs) which are now being replaced by streaming vid eos from the Internet. Adelman, Donnelly, Dove, Tiffany Morles, Wayne and Zucker (2002) f various technologies into schools and classrooms throughout the past century has not altered basic patterns of teaching and learning -and this is precisely the challenge that confronts current proponents of technology In other words teachers may be using different devices in their teaching, but their methods have remained much the same as always.

PAGE 17

17 The Enhancing Education through Technology Act of 2001 was created as a way of helping teachers and schools incorporate technology into th eir classrooms. This Act provided grants to states that met requirements of integrating technology into the curriculum. More ur educational system. According to NETP and U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan The plan recognizes that technology is at the core of virtually every aspect of our daily lives and work, and we must leverage it to provide engaging and power ful learning experiences and content, as well as resources and assessments that measure student achievement in more, complete, authentic, and meaningful ways. Technology based learning and assessment systems will be pivotal in improving .7) NETP calls for a model of learning powered by technology. This model asks teachers to bring state of the art technology into learning so that they may motivate, enable, and inspire their students. Prior to the NETP, in 1998, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) published their own set of national standards for students and then in 2000 published standards for teachers (Barron, Kemker, Hames, & Kalydijan, 2003). In 2007, ITSE developed the new National Educational Technology Sta ndards for Students (NETS*S). Later, ISTE released new National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T)(2008) to help teachers effectively model and apply the NETS by using these standards as they created, implemented, and assessed learning These standards provide teachers with a framework for organizing their use of technology in instruction. There are five Standards for T eachers, and each is accompanied by performance indicators: Standard 1: Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Cr eativity Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences

PAGE 18

18 that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face to face and virtual environments. Standard 2: Design and Deve lop Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessments incorporating tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS*S. Standard 3: Mode l Digital Age Work and Learning Teachers exhibit knowledge, skills, and work processes representative of an innovative professional in a global and digital society. Standard 4: Promote and Model Digita l Citizenship and Responsibility Teachers understand local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolving digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices. Standard 5: Engage in Pro fessional Growth an d Leadership Teachers continuously improve their professional practice, model lifelong learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources. Statement of the Problem Current research indicates that educators are making attempts to utilize technology in and for classroom instruction. They are using technology to keep records, communicate with parents and students, create materials for student use, and te ach the content to their students. Teachers are also asking students to access technology as a means of enhancing their learning. Research that defines the extent of technology use allows educational organizations to identify what they are doing well and w hat they need to improve It also allows researchers to determine needs for further research.

PAGE 19

19 teachers. As a result, t here is a paucity of research conce rning how special educators use technology for instruction. In fact, s everal researchers stated that they specifically excluded special educators from their samples ( e.g., Becker, 2001; Neiderhauser, Lindstrom, & Strobel, 2007). What little research there is on special ed ucation and technology focuses on assistive technology (AT) rather than general instructional technology. There is a need for research that examines more closely how special education teachers are using technology for instruction so that possible conclusi ons may be drawn about how to improve our educational systems to better prepare students with disabili ties for life after high school. This study may serve as the first step in gaining knowledge of how technology is currently being used for instruction in high school special education classrooms. Purpose of the Study Given the push for nationwide accountability for student achievement (e.g., No Child Left Behind) all students, including those with special needs, should be gaining access to and using techno logy for learning. Due to the lack of research about how secondary special educators use technology for instruction, more information is needed about current practices In order to gather this information a survey was used to ask secondary special educati on teachers how they are using technology for instruction. Survey methodology was chosen because according to Gay, Mill s and Airasian (2009) surveys can be used as an in strument of collection to describe characteristics of a certain population. This info rmation can then be used to de fine and topic of interest ( Dillman, Smyth & Christian, 2009; Gay et al., 2009). The purpose of this study is to investigate how secondary special education teachers use technol ogy for instructional purposes. Specifically the study will examine the following questions:

PAGE 20

20 1. What technologies are secondary special education teachers using? More specifically, what technologies are specia l education teachers using for instructional purposes, and what technologies are they asking their students to use for learning? 2. International Society for Technolog Standards for Teachers? 3. What factors (teaching setting, school context, ISTE standard familiarity, region of United States, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of students) are associated with technology usage for instru ction? Summary Technology is becoming ever more prevalent in society, and educators have a responsibility to ensure students leave school with the necessary technology knowledge and skills to be successful in life and work. According to the Rational P ers pective standards or goals should guide what should be done by organizations such as school s National standards have been developed to guide schools in the implementation of technology. These standards address Although information exists about how general scarce. This study will examine how special education teachers use technology, the extent to which their usage rel ates to established national standards, and the factors that predict technology usage. Chapter 2 provides a review of the existing literature on how teachers use technology for instruction. Chapter 3 provides a description of the research methods used i n this study. Chapter 4 provides a reporting of the results of the study, and Chapter 5 provides a discussion of these results, including implications for practice and future research.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW According to Internet World Stats, as of June 30, 2010 there were over 260 million people using the Internet in North America alone. Worldwide, the number of Internet users rises to over 1.9 billion people (Internet World Stats Usage and Population Statistics, 2011). The advancement and rapid spr ead of technology in our world has changed practically every facet of our lives from the way we pay our bills to the way we shop for cars. This progression of technology and its impact on our lives has been referred to as an e an event that changes things so much that there is no way to go back to the way things were before this event occurred (Prensky, 2001). The use of technologies such as the Internet, email, social networking text messaging, instant messaging, and cell phones by s o many in such a short period of time is changing the way that adults and children learn and interact with each other and their environments. Reliance on technologies is greater now than any other time in history and the integration of technology in educat ion affects the lives of our students from a personal standpoint, as well as influencing their future lives outside of school. Leu and Kinzer (2000) contend that the convergence of Internet technologies and classroom instruction is reshaping the very n ature of literacy instruction in our schools. Preparing students to effectively use these new information technologies, as they become available, will enable them to become productive members in an information based global society. On the other hand, stud ents are taking their education into their own hands via technology. In 2010, Project Tomorrow examined how approximately 300,000 students K 12 were interacting with technology for school and social purposes and how they envisioned schools of the future. T he students surveyed reported that they used technologically based communication and collaboration tools 51% of the time to communicate with other students

PAGE 22

22 about schoolwork, they used these tools 28% of the time to communicate with teachers about schoolwor k, posted on wikis or blogs 12% of the time and got help from online tutors 8% of the time. According to the Horizon Report by The New Media Consortium (Johnson, Levine, & Smith, 2009) there is an increasing globalization that is affecting the way we work collaborate and communicate with one another. No longer are people and the work they do tied to geographic locations. It is now common practice in the business world and in higher education to work, collaborate and communicate simultaneously with people around the globe. Technological advances such as video conferencing and collective online work spaces make working collaboratively just a mouse click away. The workplace as we know it is evolving as global communication networks become commonplace (Selfe & Selfe, 2008). As our society and world move toward an ever increasing reliance on technology, educators and researchers need to examine how we may best prepare students to compete in this environment so that they do not miss out on economic opportunities that incorporate and rely on technology in the workplace. In order to begin this process, we must first examine how teachers are currently using technology in their classrooms. The purpose of this chapter is to review the available literature concerning how teachers are using technology for instructional purposes in their classrooms. In order to address this issue, existing research literature was examined to determine (a) h ow teachers are asking students to use technology for learning and (b) h ow teache rs are using techn ology for classroom instruction. Methodology A literature search of EBSCO, Education Full Text, ERIC, Google Scholar, JSTOR and Academic Search Premier data bases was conducted using the following keyword terms:

PAGE 23

23 technology integration, i nstructional technology, technology for instruction, instructional uses of technology, technology in secondary educ ation, teacher technology use, secondary education, middle school, high school, teacher usage of technology and instructional technology. Anc estral hand searches of the references in published works were also used to gain additional sources. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included in this literature review. Studies included in this literature review discussed how classroom teach ers used technology for instruction and the frequency with which they did this. Approximately one hundred studies were initially identified for review However certain articles or book chapters were omitted if (a) the publication dealt with technologies t hat are now obsolete (e.g. video disk players) ; (b) the study was focused on students technology usage outside of school; (c) the teachers in the study were at the college level or pre service teachers; (d) the study was completed outside the United Stat es; or (e) professional development in a specific technology (e.g. ELMO, Smart Boards, Kurzweil ) was the focus of the research After a pplication of these criteria, 27 studies were included in the review. Current Perspectives In order to fully understand the role of technology in secondary special education classrooms it is necessary to first examine what is known about how teachers are currently asking students to use technology for learning and how the teachers themselves are using technology for class room instruction. Current research on both of these topics will be presented separately in the following sections of this paper. How Teachers Have Students U se Technology According to Becker (2001), there are three main objectives for student computer use : information self in writing, and mastering skills taught. Researchers have discovered that the activities

PAGE 24

24 teachers ask students to complete using technology vary by grade level and by subject area (Adelman, et al. 2002; Barron et al. 2003, Becker, 2001; Department of Education [DOE] 2009; Franklin, 2007; Neiderhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Neiderhauser & Lindstrom, 2006; Neiderhauser, Lindstrom & Stobel, 2007; Smarkola, 2008; U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI] 2000; Wurster, 2009). Differences in technology usage by grade level. Researchers have determined that teachers at the elementary level use technology differently than te achers at the secondary level (Adelman e t al., 2002; Barron et al. 2003; Becker, 2001; Gray, Thomas & Lewis, 2010; Gorder, 2008; Niederhauser et al. 2001, 2007; Smarkola, 2008; OERI, 2000). Smarkola (2008) determined that elementary teachers conformed more to the National Technology Standards for basic operational skills than did teachers at the secondary level by allowing their students to learn basic computer operations using rudimentary software. This type of software teaches students basic computer oper ations ( e.g., how to type on a computer keyboard) and concepts ( e.g., how to save information and retrieve it at a later date). Gray et al. (2010) revealed that elementary teachers and their students used computers more often during instruction (44% of the time) than their secondary counterparts (34% of the time). Teachers at the elementary level were also more likely to have their students use skill based software for drill and practice, and to use tutorial software ( e.g. Reader Rabbit, Math Blast Off) w ith their students than teachers in upper grades (Franklin, 2007; Neiderhauser et al., 2001; Smarkola, 2008; OERI, 2000). T eachers at elementary level were also twice as likely to use computers for communication ( e.g. sending or receiving email), problem solving ( e.g. completing research on the Internet), and instruction ( e.g. utilizing educational web sites) with their students than were teachers at the secondary level (Adelman et al., 2002; Barron et al., 2003).

PAGE 25

25 Secondary teachers asked their students to use more productivity tools and Internet based assignments than students at the elementary level (Smarkola, 2008). According to the OERI (2000) survey secondary teachers assigned their students research using the Internet 41% of the time versus 25% of the time at the elementary level and they asked the students to solve problems utilizing technology 31% of the time versus elementary teachers doing the same 20% of the time. T he Project Tomorrow (2010) study revealed that 34% of secondary students are ta king tests online, 79% are completing writing assignments using technology, and 19% are turning in papers online for plagiarism checks. Differences in technology usage by subject area. Several researchers have demonstrated that teachers not only differ i n their technology usage based on the grade levels they teach, but by subject area as well. In a national survey, Gray et al. (2010) revealed that 36% of the math and science teachers they surveyed reported that they asked their students to use computers o ften during instructional time while 32% of English, language arts, foreign language, and social science teachers did the same. Science teachers were three times more likely than English teachers to use computers for problem solving in the classroom (Barro n et al., 2003; Ottenbreit Leftwich et al., 2010). Both Gray et al. (2010) and Barron et al. (2003) provide evidence that science teachers at the secondary level are more likely to implement technology for classroom instruction. Barron et al. (2003) invest in the United States used technology for instruction as supported by the National Educational Technology Standards for Students. The secondary teachers in this study were compared by conte nt area to ascertain how much technology integration was occurring for instruction. Barron et al. discovered that science teachers used technology as a problem solving tool, a

PAGE 26

26 communication tool, a productivity tool, and a research tool more than English, math, or social studies teachers. Barron et al. operationalized problem solving and decision making tools as involving students in developing strategies for recognizing and solving problems using technology. Communication tools focus on students using med ia to interact and converse with peers, experts, or other audiences. Productivity tools were defined as various forms of technology that students can use to create documents, movies, spreadsheets or pictures. Research tools are the tools that students use to locate, collect and evaluate information provided by a variety of sources. In the Barron et al. survey, 28% of science teachers used technology for prob lem solving and decision making, compared with 23% of social studies teachers 17% of math teachers, and 10% of English teachers. Teachers ask students to interact with technology for various purposes. For example, teachers may ask students to express themselves in writing or use technology for other written communication They may also ask students to use technology for creation or productivity Finally teachers often ask students to use technology as a research tool. As a communication tool, Barron et al. (2003) found that elementary teachers were more likely to use computers as a communication tool with their students than high school teachers. However, seven years later Gray et al. (2010) determined that secondary teachers used technology slightly more often to communicate (via course or teacher web p ages, course or teacher blogs, and instant message) with parents or students more than their elementary peers. Across time, teachers have been increasing their usage of technology as a communication tool with their students. According to the DOE (2009) st udy, d uring the 2004 2005 school years 22% of the teachers were using technology on a weekly basis to communicate or present concepts in reading, math and other subject areas to their students, by 2006 2007 that percentage had

PAGE 27

27 increased to 39%. These same teachers reported using technology to adapt instructional 2005 and 15% of their week during 2006 2007. These results suggest that teachers were increasingly likely to use the Internet and computers on a weekly basis from 2004 2005 to 2006 2007. Additionally, Niederhauser et al. (2007) documented that students were using technology for collaborative group work (in which teachers assigned students to work in pairs or small groups on an acti vity) in 48% of the responses they obtained during semi structured interviews with technology using teachers. In 7% of the activities reported by these same teachers students were using technology to directly interact with other people (classmates, online experts, or online communit ies) for instructional purposes Gray et al. (2010) state that 40% of the secondary teachers they surveyed reported their students used educational technology to correspond sometimes or often with others, compared to 26% of the e lementary teachers surveyed. using technologies to problem solve, and (b) using technologies to create instructional materials for students to use. The utilization of multimedia presentations, videos, webpage design and word processing has been shown to promote problem solving skills (Niederhauser et al., 2007). The teachers in the Niederhauser et al. (2007) study described activities that helped students develop prob lem solving skills in only 18% of the cases reported (122 responses out of a total of 678). These problem solving skills often involved students using multimedia presentations, desktop publishing, videos or web pages to solve real world problems ( e.g., bul lying or the need to recycle at their school). Classroom teachers often use technology to create instructional materials for student use (DOE, 2009; Gray et al., 2010; Niederhauser et al., 2007; OERI, 2000; Otte nbreit Leftwich et al.,

PAGE 28

28 2010). In 2000, the DOE reported that 39% of the teachers surveyed reported accessing By 2010, in a national survey, Gray et al. found that 63% of the teachers reported using technology sometimes or often for classroom pr eparation. These percentages are consistent with the results of the DOE (2009) study that reported that teachers had increased their usage of technology to develop assignments in reading, math, and other subjects as well as in the creation of quizzes or t ests. Neiderhauser et al. (2007) noted that 76% of their respondents shared that their students used word processing, desktop publishing, and multi media to create products based on instruction. A final way that teachers ask students to use technology is for research purposes (either for writing research reports or experimental purposes/labs). Thirty four percent of the middle school high school teachers in th at study did the same. Niederhauser et al. (2007) reported that 66% of the time that students were interacting with technology involved doing research. The results of these studies reflect that teachers are asking their students to utilize technology for the purposes of communication, productivity and research. Researchers have yet to determine whether teachers are asking students to do this often enough so that students become competent users of these technologies for use in later life. ogy Usage Special Interest Groups to name three technology tools that they felt were the most influential in education over the past 30 years. As a result of this, three categories of technology emerged from the 300 responses to their online survey: (a) Internet tools/resources (e mail and web browsers), (b) general productivity tools (word processors, spread sheets, etc.) and (c) interactive white boards/projectors, Web 2.0 tools and portable digital devices. Of these tools, Internet

PAGE 29

29 tools/resources earned 37% of the votes for the most influential educational technology tool over the past 30 years. Next, general productivity tools scored 23% of the vote, interactive white boards/projectors had 17% of the votes, Web 2.0 tools received 15%, and portable digital devices 8%. But these results are in contrast to other research findings. One of the primary ways teachers use technology is in the development of curriculum, lesson plans and assignments for their students. Gray et al. (2010) reported that 40% of the teachers (elementary and secondary) they surveyed stated that they or their students used computers often during classroom instruction. These same teachers expressed tha t they used computers for word processing 97% of the time, database management 43% of the time, spreadsheets and graphing programs 63% of the time and software for making presentations 66% Studies Service (PPSS, 2003) reported over half of the teachers they surveyed (55%) reported using technology frequently for instructional purposes. Thirty nine percent of teachers surveyed reported using tional materials; however, less than 10% of those same teachers used these resources to find model lesson plans or to access research (OERI, 2000). In 2002, Adleman et al. stated that the use of technology for professional activities, (such as planning les sons, keeping grade books, etc.) was very common for the teachers in their survey of over 1,000 teachers grades K 12. In 2009, the Department of Education reported that teachers had increased their usage of technology for developing curriculum or assignmen ts from 31% of the teachers doing so in 2004 2005 to 47% of the teachers using these same technologies weekly in 2006 2007. Teachers also use technology to present concepts or curriculum to students. Adelman et al. (2002) revealed that 92% of the teacher s in their survey said that during instructional time they

PAGE 30

30 lead some activities with technology and 55% of those surveyed said they did this frequently. These percentages are similar to what the OERI observed in 2000 when they reported that 66% of the tea chers surveyed indicated they used computers or the Internet for instruction during class time. In contrast to the findings presented above only 39% of the teachers surveyed by DOE in 2009 reported using technology to present reading, math or other subjec t concepts to students on a weekly basis. An interesting note from this study was that teachers reported a statistically significant increase from 2004 2005 to 2006 2007 in the amount and type of technology they used for instruction, however, student usage of technology for learning did not reflect an increase in the frequency of use for learning. Based on the technologies that teachers have felt have been most influential to education over the past 30 years, there appears to be a disconnect to what teache rs are reporting they are using. That is, the tools identified as most influential are not the same tools identified as most used. Perhaps one of the reasons for this disconnect are the barriers that the teachers perceive as impeding implementation. Barri ers to Technology Integration As our society and world integrate more and more technology, the use of technology in schools seems to be lagging. Because students should be immersed in technology as preparation for their life after school, it is important t o understand why technology usage is not more prevalent in our schools. Several studied have explored the barriers to technology integration in instruction. One of the most formidable barriers to technology usage is limited access. How often a teacher accesses technology for instructional purposes and how technology (Adelman et al., 2002; Becker, 2001; Gra y et al., 2010; Hsu, Wu & Hwang, 2007;

PAGE 31

31 PPSS, 2003). Becker (2001) emphasized that having access to computers in their own classrooms was a very important determinant of how frequently teachers used computers for instructional purposes. For example, secondary teachers in this study were twice as likely to give their students technology based assignments if they had computers in their own classrooms. Having the technology in their own class made utilizing that technology and all of its component parts much easier and convenient Fortunately, access to classroom computers is increasing. In 2002, Adelman et al. reported that of the over 1,000 teachers they surveyed, one in five teachers had access to only one or two computers in their own classrooms and fewer than 25 computers in a lab setting. In 2003, it was reported that 30% of the teachers surveyed had two or more computers in their classroom and had access to a computer lab with 25 or more computers (PPSS, 2003). Fifty one percent of their teachers reported having either two or more computers or lab access. However, 47% of the teachers in this study stated that lack of access was a moderate or great barrier to technology integration (PPSS, 2003). By 2010, Gray et al. reported that 97% of the teachers they surveyed had com puters in their classrooms every day with 93% of those computers having Internet access. In a survey study of 4,083 teachers in grades 4 12, Becker (2001) observed that secondary teachers were twice as likely to give their students technology based assignm ents (word processing, multi media presentations, and spread sheets) if they had five to eight computers in their classrooms. Time to access technology. Time was another obstacle that teachers reported as a barrier to the implementation of instructional t echnology (Becker, 2001; Franklin, 2007; McGrail, 2006; for professional development or practicing technology skills were cited in the research as barriers

PAGE 32

32 to tech nology usage. Becker (2001) noted that one factor that influenced the amount of time a teacher used technology for instructional purposes was the way their academic day was divided up. Teachers who worked in schools with block scheduling (90 120 minutes) w ere somewhat more likely to report frequent student computer use during class as compared to teachers who taught in more traditional time blocks (50 minutes). Thus, having an extended instructional period may increase the likelihood that the teacher will use a portion of that time allowing a lack of time in their daily schedule to incorporate technology due to curricular demands and high stakes testing prepara tion. These activities were apparently considered incompatible with technology usage. Lack of time was also considered to be a moderate to great barrier to the use of technology in the PPSS (2003) study. In this study, teachers reported they had limited time in the school schedule to conduct technology activities, limited time to practice technology skills, and limited time to develop activities that incorporate technology. Likewise, Bauer and Kenton (2005) noted with revealed that integrating technology into utilized technology when compared with more traditional non technology lessons. These teachers also stated that back up lessons need to be created as well, in case of technology failure. Additionally, McGrail (2006) stated that the teachers did not feel that they were given adequate time to learn how to use technology themselves, nor did they feel proficient enough to instruct their students on the proper uses of it. Vannetta and Fordham (2004) contend that learning to use technology requires time spent not only in training or professional development to learn how to

PAGE 33

33 and explore the technology. One not only needs access to the technology to use it but also needs the time to access it. Socio economic status and technology access. Research has also revealed how the socio economic status (SES) of the students and the sc hool can serve as a barrier to technology integration and may limit the types of activities that students are being asked to do with that technology. For example, Becker (2001) concluded that secondary teachers in low SES schools report having their studen ts use computers more than teachers at higher SES schools, but students who were either in high SES or low SES schools were more likely to use computers than students who were in mid SES school settings. However, it should be noted that the students who we re from high SES schools were using technology for creation and production of materials or to solve real world problems, while students from low SES schools were using technology for skill and drill types of work. This finding is echoed in the work of the OERI (2000) when they stated that teachers in schools with poverty levels of 71% or more used computers 35% of the time for practice drills and 18% of the time for completing research using the Internet. Gray et al. (2010) confirm these findings a decade l ater. They reported that teachers in high poverty schools used computers to learn or practice basic skills 83% of the time, compared with their counterparts from high SES schools who used technology the same way 61% of the time. In 2003, according to the PPSS 38% of teachers at high poverty schools cited a lack of access to the Internet at school as a barrier, compared to their peers in other schools who reported the same thing (26%). Teacher comfort with technology and professional development Access, time, and SES levels are only a few of the barriers that teachers face when implementing technology for instruction. Another barrier that may exist for teachers is their own comfort with technology.

PAGE 34

34 gs of proficiency with technology (both skill based and with the programs and operating systems housed on the computer) had the greatest effect on their readiness to integrate technology into their instruction. Likewise Burns and Polman (2006) suggest that teachers will use technology more as they become more confident and comfortable with its use. In 2000, the OERI reported that only 23% of the teachers surveyed felt well prepared to use computers and the Internet in their teaching, and only 10% reported computers for instructional purposes. The teachers felt uncomfortable being asked to implement technology for instruction when they themselves were not familiar with the medium (laptops), and they did not feel well versed in effective ways to incorporate them in to their curricula. How far removed teachers are from their initial preparation seems to influence their feelings of preparedness. The OERI (2000) reported that teachers with three or fewer years of teaching experience were more likely to state that they felt well prepared to use computers for instructional purposes versus teachers who had 20 or more years of experience (19% with 20 or more years vs. 31% with 3 or fewer years). In 2007, Hsu et al. cited similar findings when they discovered that teachers with less than ten years teaching experience tended to have more computer skills and were more confident in their technological abilities than teachers who had 11 or more years of teaching experience and who felt anxious and unsure of their abilities. Simi larly, Franklin (2007) ascertained that 84% of recent graduates surveyed from one teacher

PAGE 35

35 computers. It is unclear whether these findings can be attributed to cou rses related to technology perhaps a combination of these factors could explain the differences. l with technology and implementation of it is providing professional development in its usage and applications. Niederhauser et al. (2001) maintain that personal belief systems influence what teachers take away from reform initiatives and professional deve lopment efforts. For example, if a teacher is didactic in their views (hold traditional beliefs about teaching) they tend to use skill and drill based technologies. T eachers who are constructivist in nature use more open ended software such as PowerPoint, Math Exploration Toolkit, and Lotus. Adelman et al. (2002) also state that the number of professional development activities that teachers attended, the quality of that training and the integration of that technology into their existing curricula had an impact on technology integration. McGrail (2006) stressed that teachers need to feel that they possess the knowledge necessary to implement technology to meet the goals of their curriculum, to teach the skill required for academic advancement and to meet t he individual needs of their students. One way to achieve this is through providing teachers with individualized, discipline specific professional development (McGrail, 2006). In 2010, Gray et al. determined through their survey research that the followin g activities prepared teachers to make effective use of technology for instruction: formal professional development activities such as attending with in or out of district sponsored workshops or institutes and independent learning through reading journals, visiting web sites or working with peers, family or friends who are knowledgeable. Likewise Staples, Pugach, and Himes (2005) stressed that effective planning for technology integration takes into account how hardware and

PAGE 36

36 software will be used in relation to the curriculum. This planning can require graduated staff development that allows teachers to learn technology well enough so that it can be used easily and seamlessly to support the curriculum. In 2003, the PPSS found that teachers reported that their greatest need was professional development to integrate technology into their instruction. Both the PPSS (2003) and the OERI (2000) studies reported that teachers who had received more professional development were more likely to use technology for instru ctional purposes. Teachers from the OERI (2000) survey who had received 32 or more hours of professional fessional development with technology (29% versus 6 10%). Adelman et al. (2002) also report that professional development opportunities that a teacher has access to, coupled with the alignment of research based features aided technology utilization for instruction, as well as how easily the technology could be integrated into existing curricula influences instructional usage. While teachers who receive professional development centered on technology tend to implement that technology more often, many teachers reported having limited time to practice the technology skills taught during professional development. They also had limited time to develop new activities and to practice implementing them in class. Although professional development is clearly necessary to increase technology usage, the degree to which usage is influenced may depend on the quality of and time devoted to professional development. Interpreting Fi ndings in the Context of the NETS*T Standards The ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Teachers (NETS*T) were created to help teachers effectively model and apply the National Educational Technology Standards for

PAGE 37

37 Students as they created, implemented a nd assessed learning. These five standards will be used to summarize the findings of this literature review. Standard 1: Facilitate and Inspire S tudent Learning and Creativity The research reviewed concerning this standard was conflicting. Adelman et al. (2002) and Barron et al. (2003) stated that elementary teachers were twice as likely as secondary teachers to used technology for the purpose of facilitating and inspiring student learning and creativity. However, according to the OERI (2000) secondary te achers used the Internet more and had their students problem solve more than elementary teachers. These conflicting results lead to the conclusion that further research needs to be completed on this topic to see what is transpiring in classrooms some ten y ears later. This research is important because our workplaces and our world are moving toward an ever increasing reliance on technology to accomplish real world tasks. S chools, therefore, should be facilitating this type of learning so that students are ab le to thrive and compete in a technology based world. Standard 2: Design and Develop Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments The results from this literature review have shown that teachers are increasing their use of technology for instruction a t all levels (DOE, 2009; Gray et al., 2010; OERI, 2000). However, differences do exist based on grade level and content areas. Elementary teachers are asking their students to complete more skill and drill type of work while secondary teachers are asking their students to do more problem solving and research using technology. Based on content areas, science teachers appear to utilize technology more than teachers of other content areas. Standard 3: Model Digital Age Work and Learning The literature revi ewed here demonstrated that, over time, teachers are increasing their usage of technology for classroom instruction and preparation of instruction. Over half of the

PAGE 38

38 teachers surveyed for the studies presented here reported using technology frequently as pa rt of their instruction (Adelman, 2002; Gray et al., 2010; USDOE, 2009; OERI, 2000). While the data reported in the above studies show an increase in teachers modeling digital age work and learning it is still not enough. The finding that 50% of our teach ers are utilizing these tools means that 50% are not using them. This also means that approximately half of our students not receiving the type of instruction that will prepare them for their futures. Standard 4: Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and R esponsibility The only study that directly addressed this standard was Neiderhauser et al. (2007), and they reported that most of the teachers in their sample of technology using teachers did not address this standard in their instruction. For example, onl y a few teachers reported helping their students learn how to appropriately cite online work. As our world moves to an ever increasing reliance on technology for many things, educators must teach their students how to act and interact appropriately with t echnology. Standard 5: Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership The research reviewed here has shown that teachers who are learning about ways to implement technology through professional development are more likely to use technology in their classroo ms. These studies have also indicated that the greatest need is obtaining more professional development to develop those skills. In addition to professional development, teachers also need time to practice these skills and find ways to incorporate t echnolo gy into their curricula Ongoing professional development for teachers related to the integration of technology in instruction can serve as its own lesson for students. As teachers learn new technologies, they are modeling lifelong learning for their stude nts, which will help prepare those students for their futures as newer and more advanced technologies become available. Providing teachers with

PAGE 39

39 adequate time and the resources to learn about these technologies will enable them, in turn, to teach their stud ents about them. Discussion Current research indicates that educators are making attempts to utilize technology in and for classroom instruction. Currently, teachers are using technology to keep records (Adelman et al., 2002; DOE, 2009; Gray et al., 2010; PPSS, 2003), to communicate with parents and students (Barron et al., 2003; Gray et al., 2010), to create materials for student use (DOE, 2009; Gray et al., 2010; Niederhauser et al., 2007; OERI, 2000; Ottenbreit Leftwich et al., 2010), and to teach the c ontent to their students (Adelman et al., 2002; DOE, 2009; Gray et al, 2010; OERI, 2000; PPSS, 2003). Teachers are also asking students to access technology as a means of enhancing their learning (Adelman et al., 2002; Barron et al. 2003, Becker, 2001; Gra y et al., 2010; Gorder, 2008; Niederhauser et al. 2001, 2007; Smarkola, 2008; OERI, 2000). However, barriers to increased technology usage for instruction still exist in our classrooms today. Access was cited in the research as still being somewhat problem atic (Adelman et al., 2002; Becker, 2001; Gra y et al., 2010; Hsu, Wu & Hwang, 2007; PPSS, 2003), as were time to access the technology and become competent in its usage (Becker, 2001; Franklin, 2007; McGrail, 2006; PPSS, 2003; Redmann & Kotlik, 2008), soci o economic status (Becker, 2001; Gray et al., 2010; OERI, 2000; PPSS, 2003), teacher comfort (Adelman, 2002; Burns et al., 2006; Hsu et al., 2007; Inan et al., 2010; McGrail, 2006; OERI, 2000), and professional development opportunities (Adelman et al., 20 02; Gray et al., 2010; McGrail, 2006; Neiderhauser et al., 2001; Staples et al., 2005; OERI, 2000; PPSS, 2003). The NETS*T were originally created with the intent of helping teachers effectively model and apply the National Education Technology Standards f o r Students as they created and implemented lessons and assessed student learning. If teachers are to help their students gain

PAGE 40

40 access to an ever expanding technological world and workplace, then providing those students with instruction that incorporates t he NETS*T standards may prove beneficial. More research needs to be conducted to examine the most effective way to make this assimilation possible. One limitation that emerged from this literature review was the scarcity of research concerning how speci al educators used technology for instruction. Several studies stated that they excluded special educators from their samples. The one study that did include special education teachers in its survey (Gray et al., 2010) unfortunately grouped their results in with teachers who taught English as a second language, giving no indication as to how special education teachers were using technology for instruction. As students begin to request more digital learning experiences (Project Tomorrow, 2010), and teachers b egin to incorporate technology into their instruction (Adelman, et al., 2002; Barron et al. 2003, Becker, 2001; Department of Education [DOE] 2009; Franklin, 2007; Neiderhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Neiderhauser & Lindstrom, 2006; Neiderhauser, Lindstrom & St obel, 2007; Smarkola, 2008; U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI] 2000; Wurster, 2009) research needs to be conducted to look more closely at how special education teachers are using technology for instruction compared with their general education counterparts, so that possible conclusions may be drawn about how to improve our educational systems pertaining to preparing students with disabilities for life after high school. According to the Internation al Reading o become fully literate in can ensure that all stude nts can become proficient, including those with disabilities. Understanding how special educators are currently using technology is the first necessary step.

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 3 METHODOL O GY The purpose of this study is to investigate how secondary special education teachers use technology for instructional purposes. To fulfill the purpose of this study, a survey was conducted to explore the types of technologies that secondary special education teachers were using and asking their students to use, as well as the natu re of their usage. Thi s study was designed to expand the knowledge related to how educators are using and asking their students to use technology for instruction and learning. In this chapter, the process and techniques used to conduct this study are desc ribed. First, a description is provided of the criteria that were used for selecting participants, the setting in which the study took place, and the materials necessary to carry out the study. Next, the instrumentation, procedures, and data collection pro cess are described. Finally, the research design, data analysis methods, and limitations of the study are presented. Research Questions Quantitative research methods were used to answer an overarching question: How are secondary special education teachers using technology for instruction? A survey was designed and implemented to examine the following more specific research questions: 1. What technologies are secondary special education teachers using? More specifically, what technologies are special education teachers using for instructional purposes, and what technologies are they asking their students to use for learning? 2. Stand ards for Teachers? 3. What factors (and teaching setting, school context, familiarity with the ISTE NETS*T standards, census region of the United States that the teacher lived in, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of students) are associa ted with technology usage for instruction?

PAGE 42

42 Research questions 1 and 2 were addressed descriptively, research qu estion 3 was analyzed using cluster analysis followed by multiple logistic regression Participants and Setting Prior to recruiting the partici pants, approval to conduct the research was obtained by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB). Copies of the IRB protocols and approvals are provided in Appendix A Sample The sampling frame that was used for this study was purchased from Market Data Retrieval (MDR) MDR is a company that provides databases for marketing and research purposes. MDR uses a computer generated random sample selection process in order to identify the individuals for inclusion in the study based on specifie d descriptors Using the descriptor tota l universe of 69,681 secondary public school special education teachers from across the United States The minimum order for purchase from MDR was 6,300. MDR provided the school mail ing addresses for these 6,300 teachers, and u sing an on line random number generator, 1,000 teachers from the list were selected for inclusion in this study. The survey was then mailed to all the selected teachers. Participants The participants of this stu dy included a random sample of 1 ,000 secondary spec ial education teachers (grades 9 12) across the United States. High school teachers were chosen because their students are close to entering the workforce and or higher educati on. The participants were selected based on the following criteria: (a) having s pecial education certification and (b) teaching at the high school level during the 2011 2012 school year Teachers from all disciplines of special education were included. A total of 311 teachers completed the survey. A complete description of the participants is provided in Chapter 4.

PAGE 43

43 Setting The secondary special education teachers selected represented urban, suburban, and rural schools in every census region of the Unite d States The surveys were mailed to the participants school addresses Materials and Instrumentation This study required print based versions of the survey for each teacher v olunteer to complete Additionally, the researcher prepared expert panel review protocols and cognitive intervie w protocols (Appendix A ) Furthermor e a computer program (i.e., R ) was required to analyze the data. In addition, the researcher created cognitive interview protocols for focus groups and cognitive probing interviews ( Will is, 1999). The survey created for this study was used to gather data about secondary special elements from the blic Schools: 2009 (Gray, Thomas & Lewis, 2010) and the Computer Usage Survey (Smarkola, 2008). In the Gray et al. survey the researchers sought to provide national data on the use and availability of educational technology for teachers in public element ary and secondary schools in the United States. S m a questions were then categorized using the ISTE Performance Indicators for Teachers (ISTE, 2008). The newly create d survey design employed both closed and open ended questions. Closed ended questions included demographic information, types of technology that teachers have access to in and out of school, and types of technologies most frequently used for instruction. Open ended questions offered participants an opportunity to share additional information concerning their personal experiences with instructional technology. The comple te survey can be found in Appendix B

PAGE 44

44 Pre Field Methods The pre field phase was used to develop the survey inst rument. This phase consisted of (a) focus groups, (b) cognitive interviews, and (c) expert panels All secondary teachers who participated in the pre field methods signed consent forms. Focus groups. Focus groups were held to gather the survey topic (American Statistical Association, 1997). Secondary special education teachers nowledge about the survey topic ( App endix A ) First, the researcher conta cted administrators from three secondary schools in northeast Florida, asking them to share the purpose of the study with their special education teachers to determine if any teachers were interested in participating in the focus groups for this research study. Additionally, two doctoral students from the University of Florida who had experience teaching in secondary special education classrooms were invited to participate in the second focus group. A total of four teach ers participated in the two focus groups. The results of the focus groups were used to create the initial survey so that the language of the population (secondary teachers) could guide how the questions were written. After the focus groups were conducte d, audio of each focus group was reviewed to look for potential trends and patter n s related to the topic. Based on the focus group results, survey questions were written in a closed and open ended format, and an initial version of the pilot survey was con structed. Expert reviews. An expert review was completed by a research methodologist in order to determine whether the survey questions were adequate for the population and aligned with the intent of the study. In addition, a technology specialist reviewe d the questionnaire to determine if the technologies included were adequate for the population to be surveyed. Revisions of the survey then took place based on the expert review.

PAGE 45

45 Cognitive interviews. Cognitive interviews were held with two secondary s pecial education teachers as they read the survey questions Cognitive interviews were conducted in information from memory, (c) decision processes, (d) response proces ses, (e) technical accuracy of the information, and (f) structural problems with the survey. The method of cognitive interview implemented was verbal probing (Willis, 1999), which included scripted and spontaneous probes. The survey was then revised again, taking the results of the cognitive interviews into account. Field Methods In this section, field testing methods are explained. This section of the research design also describes the sampling methods and variables, followed by the data analysis section, which indicates how questions were coded and interpreted. Survey Implementation and Data Collection Phase one. The field portion of the study was implemented over the course of four months. During phase one, the pilot survey was distributed (a) via a loc back to school professional development training, (b) to doctoral students at the University of Florida who met the criteria for inclusion for this study, and (c) via a social networking site. A total of 35 participants completed the online survey. Interested participants provided their email contact information to the researcher who made email contact with each respondent by sending a pre notice email with the attached informed consent. The pre notice email identified the topic of th e survey, the objective of the survey, the importance of the study, and a link to the on line pilot survey. Contact information was provided in order to address additional questions about the study. If necessary, a reminder email was sent that also contain s the hyperlink to the survey.

PAGE 46

46 Phase two. Phase two consisted of analyzing the results from the pilot survey and revising the survey instrument due to limitations that resulted from skip patterns, missing technology sugge stions for survey changes. The survey changes were reviewed by a research methodologist and other education researchers, and their suggestions were used to create the final survey. Phase three. The final survey was created based on the pilot survey and expert panel results and sent to IRB for approval. The final surv ey was then mailed to 1 ,000 anonymous secondary special education teache rs throughout the United States along with a cover letter expl aining the purpose of the study and a $2.00 bill as an incentive to complete and return the survey. A post card was mailed two weeks later as a reminder to complete and return the survey and as a thank you to those who had Data Analysis Data coding. Quantitative research methods were used to conduct th is study. After the researcher had entered the data into the dataset an alysis of inter coder reliability was conducted on 10% of the surveys. The overall percentage of agreement between coders was 99.56%. Next, a set of statistical analysis procedures was applied using the R .2.14.0 (R Devel opment Team, 2011) environment. A data codebook was developed for data analysis. When the data were coded, each survey respondent was assigned a case number and each survey item was represented as a variable. Numerical codes were assigned to each categorical and non categorical respons e for each item At the end of the survey, space was provided for participants to share additional information about their use of technology, the technology that was available to them at their school, or to comment about the survey itself. The responses provided descriptive, text data, which required qualitative analysis. To analyze the data beyond on the aforementioned

PAGE 47

47 thematically reduced so that conclusions could be drawn (Creswell, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Research questions 1 and 2. The first two research questions in this study required the use of descriptive statistics. Frequency counts were collected on the types of technologies being used by secondary special education teachers, how frequently they use certain technologies for instruction, and how often they are asking their students to use these technologies for instructional purposes. The frequency counts were then converted into percentages, which allowed for interpretation of responses. For two survey questions, participants were asked to report number of years of teaching experience they had and number of hours of technology related pr ofessional development they had received in the past year. These responses were numerical (continuous) and therefore were converted to mean s and sta ndard deviations. Any cases that were missing were deleted and thus excluded from the descriptive analyses There were 81,126 observations total and 1, 598 were missing and therefore deleted. Research question 3. A total of 30 variables were used based on survey questions 7 and 8 (see Appendix C for a complete list of variables), to predict clusters. Next six variables were used to determine if they were predictors of the clusters. The six variables that were used were based on teaching setting (survey question 18 ), school context (s urvey q uestion 20), ISTE performance indicators for teachers (s urvey q uestion 22), region of US (postal addresses), years of teaching experience (s urvey q uestion 13), and primary disability of students (s urvey q uestion 19). These variables were chosen based on past research that examined classroom settings and technology usage in ge neral education classroom settings (Adelman et al., 2002; Barron et al.

PAGE 48

48 2003, Becker, 2001; Gray, Thomas and Lewis, 2010; Gorder, 2008; Niederhauser et al. 2001, 2007; Smarkola, 2008; OERI, 2000) years of teaching experience (Franklin, 2007; Hsu et al., 2 007; OERI, 2000), teachers knowledge and proficiency teaching the ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Teachers (Neiderhauser et al., 2007), and a need to add to the current body of research through examination of how the region of the United States t he teachers lived and worked in, their school context, and the primary disability of the students may be affecting their technology usage. The occurrence of missing data was low (168 out of 11,028 data points) at 1.5 %. he singl e value being imputed can reflect neither sampling variability about the actual value when one model for nonresponse is being considered nor addit ional uncertainty when more than was decided that addi tional accuracy would not harm the study. Multiple imputation procedures were employed for item nonresponse using mice 2.11 library (van Buuren & Groothuis Oudshoorn, 2011). According to Rubin (1987) the multiple imputation procedure replaces each missing value with a set of plausible data values. Ten imputations of the data were completed. It is assumed that the missing data are missing completely at random (Gelman & Hill, 2010). A cluster analysis using 30 technology usage variables and the 1.14.2 clust er library in R (R eynolds, Richards, de la Inglesia, & Rayward Smith, 2006) was then used. Cluster analysis was used to divide data into groups (clusters) that are similar in nature (StatSoft, 2012). For each imputed dataset, the partitioning around medoid s method was used to get clusters (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 1990). Partitioning around mediod s is accomplished when an algorithm selects random medoids and clusters data around them and gets an overall distance. Two clusters were chosen based on the number of clusters that has the maximum average silhouette width

PAGE 49

49 compared to other number of clusters. For the current study the data suggested two clusters, high technology users and low technology users. This type of analysis is often used in exploratory research. The association between the cluster and the other six variables was checked. The next step consisted of using multiple logisitic regression and required the use of a set of statistical analysis procedures being applied using the R.2.14.0 (R Development C ore Team, 2011) environment. According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) multiple logistic regression is used for determining the correlation between a set of predictor variables and a dichotomous criterion variable The above analyses were performed again for each imputed dataset. Then the results of the multiple logistic regression were combined using the formulas presented below (Rubin, 1987): (3 1) (3 2) (3 3) (3 4) Where is the mean of the es timate from multiple imputed datasets, is the parameter estimate of the imputed datasets, m is the number of imputed datasets, is the mean of the sample variance for each imputed dataset, is the sampling variance of the imputed datasets, B

PAGE 50

50 i s the variance of estimates across multiple imputation datasets, and T is the total sampling variance. In each imputed dataset, the data suggested two clusters that could be conceptualized as lower technology usage and higher technology usage. These clus ters were then used to investigate the relationship between technology usage and teaching setting ( self contained classroom, pull out/resource room, co teaching, general education, other ), school context (urban, rural, suburban), ISTE standards familiarity (yes, no), region of the United states they lived in, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of t heir students (learning disability emotional/behavioral disorders, intellectual disabilities, other). In the beginning a full model was used t hat had technology usage being predicted by all six variables utilizing the statistics 2.14.0 package in R (R Core Development Team, 2011). Next, a drop 1 algorithm was used where in each analysis one of the independent variables was dropped to investig ate the model fit under absence or exis tence of a particular variable. A table of the changes in fit was then created. Model Comparison Using the Deviance formula (Agresti, 2007) were then used where L O is the log likelihood of the reduced model where on e of the independent variables is deleted. L 1 is the log likelihood of the full model L S is the log likelihood for the saturated model Deviance 0 is the residual deviance for the re d uced model and Deviance 1 is the residual deviance for the full model : 2[L 0 L 1 ]= 2[L 0 L S ] { 2[L 1 L S ]}=Devaince 0 Deviance1 (3 5) and compared with the chi square distribution in order to obtain the p value Agresti and Finlay e p. 507). In order to collapse the 10 imputations, the deviances

PAGE 51

51 were estimated differently for each imputed dataset and the average of the pooled deviations in each imputed dataset was obtained using Equation 3 1

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS According to Coiro (2009) in order for students to become successful in the digital information age they must possess the ability to create and comprehend online informational t ext It is the role of the classroom teacher to provide the instruc tion necessary for our students to acquire those skills. This study was undertaken to gain an understanding of how secondary special education teachers are using technology in their classrooms and how they are facilitating students understanding and use of technology for learning. The current study was conducted in order to address the following research questions: 1. What technologies are secondary special education teachers using? More specifically, what technologies are special education teachers using fo r instructional purposes, and what technologies are they asking their students to use for learning? 2. 3. What factors ( teaching setting, school context, familiarity with the ISTE NETS*T standards, census region of the United States that the teacher lived in, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of students) are associated with technology us age for instruction? In summ ary, the purpose of this study wa s to investigate how secondary special education teachers use technology for instructional purposes and what influences their choices. The findings for this study are presented as follows. First descriptive statistics are presented on the sample to answer research questions 1 and 2 Next, frequency anal yse s are presented to determine the types of technologies being used by secondary special education teachers, how frequently they use certain tec hnologies for instruction, and how often they are asking their students to use these technologies for in structional purposes. D ata from multiple logistic regression tests are presented to answer research question 3 Finally, the qualitative results from op en ended responses are presented.

PAGE 53

53 Description of Sample The survey was mailed to 1,000 secondary special education teachers, and a total of 331 teachers responded. Of the 331 returned surveys, twenty were not usable for one of the following reasons (a) the respondent was no longer a classroom teacher, (b) the teacher was currently not working with special education students, or (c) the survey was returned not completed. A total of 311 secondary special education teachers completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 31.7%. Descriptive data were calculated to provide a picture of the participants (i.e., sex, race), their professional preparation and experience (i.e., number of years teaching, number of hours of professional development), their current teaching assignment (i.e., grade levels currently taught, content areas taught, special education classroom setting), and their school context (i.e., location of school, Title I characteristic, primary disability of students taught). These data are presen ted in Table s 4 1 through 4 4 Participants were asked to report on their professional preparation and experience concerning technology (see Table 4 2) Additionally, they reported on thei r current teaching assignments, including grade levels taught, cont ent areas taught, and spec ial education classroom setting Participants were also asked to report their current special educat ion teaching setting (e.g. self contained, consultation, etc.). The self contained option for their current teaching setting was operationalized as the teacher being with the same group of students for the entire school day. Pull out/resource room was defined as a classroom setting where students came to the teacher for part of a school day. Co teaching was operationalized as teachi ng in the same class as a general education teacher and consultation was defined as providing support for students and teachers. Teachers who marked more than one answer choice were reported as

PAGE 54

54 Table 4 1 Participants N % Sex Male 103 33.12 Female 204 65.60 Prefer not to state 1 0.32 Race African American 29 9.33 Native American 1 0.32 Asian/Pacific Islander 6 1.93 Multiracial 8 2.57 Caucasian 251 80.71 Prefer not to state 12 3.86 Table 4 2 Professional preparation and exper ience Mean SD Median Average years of teaching e xperience 16.00 9.37 14 Hours of professional development District sponsored inservice activities 15.28 29.96 8 College or university coursework 7.77 38.95 0 Private or independent training acti vities 8.19 28.34 0 The teachers in this study had an average of 16 years of teaching experience. The teachers in the current study had 2.1 more years of experience than the average secondary special education teacher as reported by the National Center f or Educational Statistics (2008). They also spent an average of 15 hours in the past 12 months receiving district sponsored inservice activities related to educational technology. Additionally, in the past year they spent over 8 hours learning about educat ional technology on their own and over 7 hours in college or university coursework pertaining to educational technology

PAGE 55

55 High school teachers typically teach more than one grade level, so the survey included a question about grade levels taught. Based o n the results of the survey 52% of secondary teachers surveyed for this research project stated that they taught four grade levels per day. Of the remaining teachers approximately 40% stated that they taught three or fewer grade levels per day and approxi mately 8% indicated that they taught other grade levels beyond 9 through 12 (e.g., middle school grades, adult education) Table 4 3 Current teaching assignments N % Number of Grade Levels Taught 1 34 10.93 2 52 16.72 3 37 11.90 4 162 52.10 Othe r 24 7.71 Not reported 2 0.64 Content Area Reading 94 30.23 Social Studies 72 23.15 Language Arts 119 38.26 Vocational Programs 41 13.18 Mathematics 113 36.33 The Arts 10 3.22 Science 75 24.11 Other 41 13.18 Functional or Life Skills 20 6.43 Transition 7 2.25 Study Skills /Learning Strategies 9 2.89 Speech/Language 3 0.96 Adaptive Physical Education 2 0.64 Classroom Setting Self contained classroom 70 22.51 Pull out/resource room 78 25.08 Co teaching 50 16.08 Consultation 9 2.90 General education 3 0.97 Other (more than one reported) 94 30.23 None reported 7 2.25 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding

PAGE 56

56 Of the participants in this study, 38% reported that they were teachers of Language Arts and 36% report ed being teachers of Mathematics. Further over 30% of the teachers stated that they taught reading and 13% reported teach such as life skills or study skills T eachers were asked to report their current school context, whether their schoo l received Title I funds, and the primary disabil ity of their students. More than 37% of the teachers in this study taught in schools that are in suburban settings, compared to 30% in urban areas, and 29% in rural locales. Participants were equally divided between schools that received Title I funds (47%) and schools that did not receive Title I funds (47%) A large majority of teachers in this study reported teaching students with learning disabilities (66%) The next highest percentage was from teachers of students wi th intellectual disabilities ( 15% ) Table 4 4 Current school context N % School Context Urban 92 29.58 Rural 90 28.94 Suburban 116 37.30 None reported 13 4.18 Title I Classification Yes 147 47.27 No 147 47.27 None reported 17 5.47 Primary Disability of Students Learning disabilities 206 66.24 Emotional/behavioral disorders 30 9.65 Intellectual disabilities 46 14.79 Other 13 4.18 None reported 16 5.15 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding

PAGE 57

57 Fin dings Related to Research Questions This section will detail the results for each research question. The reporting of f indings is organized according to question. Research Question 1 The first research question for this study was as follows: What technol ogies are secondary special education teachers using? More specifically, what technologies are special education teachers using for instructional purposes, and what technologies are they asking their students to use for learning? exists no shortage of technology for instructing students. Although a wide variety of technology and technology tools exist for teachers to use for instructing their students, participants in this study repo rted using just a few. Table 4 5 shows what techn ology devices or hardware the secondary special education teachers in this study were using for instruction. Table 4 7 r eports on the technology tools or software programs teachers used with their students during instruction. If participants indicated that technology or technology tool, they were requested to indicate why (Table 4 6 and Table 4 8) Data presented in Table 4 5 demonstrate that the technology devices or hardware used most often for instruction in secondary special education classrooms are the Internet (hard wired and wireless), LCD projectors, laptop computers and desktop computers. For instruction teachers most frequently utilize web sites/Internet, word processing software, database management software, and softw are to manage student records (Table 4 7). Further analysis of ants was that these technology devices or hardware were not available to these teachers for classroom

PAGE 58

58 in struction (Table 4 6) T technology software or tools was that the tools did not meet their needs (Table 4 8). This study also examined the ways special education teachers ask their student s to use technology for learning (see Table 4 9). Teachers in this study reported that they encouraged their students to use technology often for the purposes of (a) word processing, (b) learning or practicing basic skills, and (c) corresponding with other s. In contrast to this, these same teachers use social networking sites, conduct virtual experiments or perform calculations, create art, music, or webcasts, and they never had them design and produce products. Unlike the previous section this survey question students, therefore further analysis of this response is not possible. Table 4 5. Tec hnologies secondary special education teachers use for instruction Technology device or hardware % Never % Rarely % Sometimes % Often Internet connection (hardwired) 8.36 6.43 23.80 61.10 Internet connection (wireless) 27.33 8.68 20.90 42.44 Videoconf erencing unit 76.85 13.51 6.11 0.97 Interactive whiteboard 40.84 5.15 15.43 37.62 Classroom response system 66.24 13.51 9.97 5.47 Digital camera (still or video) 43.73 19.94 24.12 11.25 MP3 player/iPod 51.45 16.40 20.90 9.65 Handheld device (e.g., Pal m OS, Windows CE) 78.79 9.00 7.40 3.54 Streaming video 32.15 14.15 33.44 18.97 LCD projector 22.51 8.36 20.58 45.34 Content m anagement system (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard) 65.92 12.86 10.93 8.36 Cell phones/smart phones 63.34 13.18 12.22 10.93 eReaders ( e.g., Kindle, Nook) 78.78 9.65 7.07 3.22 Tablet computers (e.g., iPad) 67.85 9.00 12.22 9.97 Laptop computers 30.87 10.93 20.26 36.98 Desktop computers 5.15 7.40 23.15 63.34 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 6 Reasons se condary special education teachers cite for never using t echnology devices or hardware for instruction Technology device or hardware % Never % Not available % Need more training % meet needs % Other Internet connection (hardwired) 8.36 3.21 0.0 0 2.57 1.28 Internet connection (wireless) 27.33 23.15 0.32 2.89 0.32 Videoconferencing unit 76.85 46.30 9.32 19.30 3.86 Interactive whiteboard 40.84 35.05 3.86 2.89 1.28 Classroom response system 66.24 46.62 9.03 5.79 6.75 Digital camera 43.73 21.22 1.60 16.40 4.50 MP3 player/iPod 51.45 25.72 0.96 17.04 7.39 Handheld device 78.79 59.80 5.46 9.96 5.15 Streaming video 32.15 18.33 4.98 7.40 3.22 LCD projector 22.51 13.50 1.29 6.43 1.93 Content management system 65.92 37.62 12.54 11.90 4.82 Cell phones/smart phones 63.34 21.54 0.32 23.47 18.97 eReaders 78.78 63.99 1.29 9.00 4.18 Tablet computers 67.85 59.49 1.61 3.53 2.25 Laptop computers 30.87 24.76 0.64 2.89 3.22 Desktop computers 5.15 3.22 0.00 0.97 10.64 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding Table 4 7. Technology tools secondary special education teachers are using for instruction Technology software or t ools % Never % Rarely % Sometimes % Often Web sites/Internet 0.00 2.57 21.54 75.24 Word processing software 2.25 8.68 19.61 69.13 Database management software 23.15 20.58 26.69 26.69 Spreadsheet and graphing programs 19.29 25.72 29.90 23.47 Software for managing student records 6.10 2.25 10.93 80.06 Software for desktop publishing 24.12 21.87 27.97 24.76 Graphi cs, image editing software 36.66 25.08 24.44 13.18 Software for creating presentations 12.22 19.94 37.62 29.26 Software for administering tests 27.01 21.22 32.48 18.01 Simulations and visualization programs 35.05 29.58 21.87 12.22 Drill/practice progr ams or tutorials 17.04 25.40 34.73 21.87 Subject specific software programs 17.69 24.12 32.15 25.08 Blogs and/or wikis 73.96 15.43 8.04 2.25 Social networking 84.89 8.36 3.22 3.22 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding

PAGE 60

60 Table 4 8. R easons secondary special education teachers cite for never using technology software or tools for instruction Technology software or t ools % Never % Not Available % Need more training % meet needs % Other Web sites/Internet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 Word processing software 2.25 0.64 0.32 0.97 0.00 Database management software 23.15 6.43 4.18 9.33 3.22 Spreadsheet and graphing programs 19.29 1.93 4.50 9.00 2.57 Software for managing student records 6.10 1.61 0.64 2.89 0.97 Software for des ktop publishing 24.12 4.82 4.22 10.93 3.89 Software for creating presentations 12.22 2.25 1.61 6.43 1.93 Software for administering tests 27.01 10.30 1.93 10.93 3.54 Simulations and visualization programs 35.05 15.76 7.07 9.33 3.54 Drill/practice progr ams or tutorials 17.04 6.72 2.57 5.79 2.57 Subject specific software programs 17.69 9.97 2.25 3.22 2.56 Blogs and/or wikis 73.96 21.54 11.25 29.90 12.22 Social networking 84.89 27.65 2.57 31.19 20.90 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to roun ding Table 4 9 What technologies secondary special education teachers are asking their students to use for learning in school Activity % Never % Rarely % Sometimes % Often Word processing 5.15 7.07 37.94 49.52 Create or use graphics or visual display s 9.33 16.08 46.30 27.01 Learn or practice basic skills 3.22 9.97 35.69 50.80 Conduct research 8.36 12.54 42.12 35.69 Correspond with others 23.47 23.47 19.29 28.30 Contribute to blogs or wikis 67.20 21.22 8.36 1.93 Use social networking sites 69.78 10.61 8.04 10.61 Solve problems, analyze data, or perform calculations 13.18 21.87 36.66 27.97 Conduct experiments or perform measurements 34.73 21.54 29.58 13.18 Develop and present multimedia presentations 16.72 16.72 44.05 22.19 Create art, music, o r webcasts 44.05 27.01 23.15 5.15 Develop or run demonstrations, models, or simulations 48.88 28.30 17.69 4.50 Design and produce a product 49.84 22.51 19.94 7.07 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding Research Question 2 The second r esearch question of interest in this study was as follows: How does secondary ? Standards to guide

PAGE 61

61 instructional practices are now common in education. The ISTE NETS and Performance I ndicators for Teachers (NETS*T) were created to help teachers effectively model and apply the National Educational Technology Standards for Students as they created, implemented and assesse d learning. Results relating to Standards 1 through 4 are presente d in the following sections The findings are summarized standard by standard, based on the ISTE NETS*T and Per formance Indicators in Table 4 10 Standard 5 data were reported previously in Table 4 2 : Professional Preparation and Experience Standard 1: Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity The data show that most secondary special education teachers included in this study are using technology to explore real world issues (46% ). Th ese same teach ers reported model ing creativ authentic problems (42% with others (35% ). Standard 2: Design and Develop Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments Over 62 % of respondent graphics or image editing software because it did not meet their needs in the classroom Simulation and visualization software was reported by 65% of the teachers as b e The primary reasons they reported that they did not use these typ es of technology tools was that they were not available to them.

PAGE 62

62 Table 4 10 Results for ISTE NETS*T Standards 1 4 % Never % Rarely % Sometimes % Often Standard 1: Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity Model creative and innovative thinking 7.07 16.08 46.95 28.94 Explore real world issues 3.54 11.25 38.59 46.30 Solve authentic problems 7.72 22.51 42.12 27.01 Collabo rate with other students, teachers, experts 13.83 16.08 35.05 34.73 Standard 2: Design and Develop Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments Graphics, image editing software 36.66 25.08 24.44 13.18 Software for creating presentations 12.22 19.94 37.62 29.26 Software for administering tests 27.01 21.22 32.48 18.01 Simulations and visualization programs 35.05 29.58 21.87 12.22 Standard 3: Model Digital Age Work and Learning Internet connection (hardwired) 8.36 6.43 23.79 61.09 Internet connec tion (wireless) 27.33 8.68 20.90 42.44 Videoconferencing unit 76.85 13.51 6.11 0.97 Interactive whiteboard 40.84 5.15 15.43 37.62 Classroom response system 66.24 13.51 9.97 5.47 Digital camera (still or video) 43.73 19.94 24.12 11.25 MP3 player/iPod 5 1.45 16.40 20.90 9.65 Handheld device 78.78 9.00 7.40 3.54 Streaming video 32.15 14.15 33.44 18.97 LCD projector 22.51 8.36 20.58 45.34 Content management system 65.92 12.86 10.93 8.36 Cell phones/smart phones 63.34 13.18 12.22 10.93 eReaders 78.7 8 9.65 7.07 3.22 Tablet computers 67.85 9.00 12.22 9.97 Laptop computers 30.87 10.93 20.26 36.98 Desktop computers 5.15 7.40 23.15 63.34 Collaborate with other students, teachers, experts 13.83 16.08 35.05 34.73 Conduct research 8.36 12.54 42.12 35.6 9 Email or listservs to send out information to parents 19.94 8.04 30.55 40.84 Email or listservs to send out information to students 52.41 12.86 22.51 11.90 Email to address individual concerns (parents) 5.79 4.18 27.65 62.06 Email to address individu al concerns (students) 49.20 12.86 22.83 14.47 Online bulletin board for class discussions (parents) 68.81 16.72 7.40 5.79 Online bulletin board for class discussions (students) 71.70 8.36 9.33 8.04 Course or teacher web site (parents) 40.19 15.11 22.51 20.58 Course or teacher web site (students) 51.13 14.15 18.65 14.47 Course or teacher blog (parents) 72.35 10.61 9.33 6.43 Course or teacher blog (students) 80.06 7.40 6.43 4.82 Instant messaging or texting (parents) 53.70 15.76 15.43 15.11 Instant m essaging or texting (students) 71.70 10.61 11.25 6.43 Social networking (parents) 83.60 7.40 5.15 3.22 Social networking (students) 88.10 4.50 5.46 1.61

PAGE 63

63 Table 4 10. Continued % Never % Rarely % Sometimes % Often Standard 4: Promote and Model Digit al Citizenship and Responsibility Provided access to digital tools and resources 7.07 8.04 36.98 47.91 Differentiated instruction using technology 5.47 9.00 34.73 50.48 Promoted Internet safety 8.04 12.22 28.62 49.52 Taught legal and ethical use of dig ital information and technology 18.00 18.65 34.08 28.94 Promoted digital etiquette and responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information 15.43 22.19 36.66 25.72 Engaged with people from diverse cultures using digital age co mmunication and collaboration tools 59.49 22.83 11.90 5.79 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding Standard 3: Model Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments. With regard to modeling digital age work and learning participants are using technology to access the Internet, using both laptop and desktop computers and using LCD projectors as part of their instruction. Pertaining to communication with parents and students secondary special education teachers are emailing their student parents often with updates and information or with individual concerns. However most are not communicating with their students fo r these purposes. T he majority of respo nders never use online bulletin boards for class discussion, course or teacher web s ites or blogs, instant messaging or texting, and they never use social media as a form of communication with their parents or their students Standard 4: Promoting and Modeling Digital Age Citizenship and R esponsibility According to the findin gs of this study, promoting and modeling digital age citizenship and responsibility is most often accomplished through providing access to digital tools and resources (47% ), differentiating instruction using technology (51% ), and promoting Internet safety (50% ). Over one third of the teachers in this study said that they t aught legal and ethical use of digital information and technology and p romoted

PAGE 64

64 digital etiquette and responsible social interactions rel ated to the use of technology and information Research Question 3 The final research question of interest in this study was as follows: What factors are associated with technology usage for instruction? One of the goals of this research study was to determine if there were certain factors that were associated with the level of technology used by teachers for instruction. In order to determine if this was so a series of multiple logistic regressions were used to analyze the data in order (low or high) and teaching setting, school context, familiarity with the ISTE NETS*T standards, region of the United States that the teacher lived in, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of st udents. The respondents were clustered according to degree of technology use and were labeled as either High Technology Users or Low Technology Users. The cluster analysis revealed differences between these two categories of respondents in terms of thei r use of specific technologies. The range of difference was from 3.18% (web site/Internet) to 52.56% (interactive whiteboard), with a median difference of 24.69%. Table 4 11 provides the results of the cluster analysis, and Table 4 12 contains the result s of the multiple logistic regression analysis. The full model with effect of teaching setting has a deviance equal to the 404.15 and the reduced model without teaching setting has a deviance equal to the 407.85. The difference between deviances equal 3.70 with df=5. This likelihood ratio statistic for testing the association between teaching setting and technology usage controlling for school context, ISTE standards, region of US, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of students is not sign ificant with the p value of 0.59.

PAGE 65

65 Table 4 11. Cluster analysis results Technology Lower Technology User Higher Technology User Diff.* Never or Rarely Sometimes or Often Never or Rarely Sometimes or Often Interactive whiteboard 69.10% 30.90% 16.54% 83.46% 52.56% Laptop computers 62.36% 37.64% 16.54% 83.46% 45.82% Simulations and visualization programs 83.15% 16.85% 41.35% 58.65% 41.80% Software for administering tests 65.73% 34.27% 26.32% 73.68% 39.41% Database management software 61.24% 38.76% 22.56% 77.44% 38.68% Spreadsheets/ graphing programs 60.67% 39.33% 25.56% 74.44% 35.11% Software for presentations 47.19% 52.81% 12.78% 87.22% 34.41% Subject specific software 56.18% 43.82% 23.31% 76.69% 32.87% Graphics, image editing software 75.84% 24 .16% 43.61% 56.39% 32.23% Streaming video 60.67% 39.33% 30.08% 69.92% 30.59% Software for desktop publishing 58.99% 41.01% 28.57% 71.43% 30.42% Drill/practice programs tutorials 56.18% 43.82% 26.32% 73.68% 29.86% Internet (wireless) 47.75% 52.25% 21.0 5% 78.95% 26.70% LCD projector 43.26% 56.74% 19.55% 80.45% 23.71% MP3 player/iPod 79.21% 20.79% 55.64% 44.36% 23.57% Cell phones/smart phones 85.96% 14.04% 63.91% 36.09% 22.05% Content management system 88.20% 11.80% 68.42% 31.58% 19.78% Tablet comput ers 85.39% 14.61% 66.17% 33.83% 19.22% Classroom response system 89.89% 10.11% 71.43% 28.57% 18.46% Handheld device (e.g., PDA) 95.51% 4.49% 80.45% 19.55% 15.06% eReaders 95.51% 4.49% 80.45% 19.55% 15.06% Digital camera 69.66% 30.34% 56.39% 43.61% 13.2 7% Desktop computers 17.98% 82.02% 6.02% 93.98% 11.96% Internet (hardwired) 20.22% 79.78% 8.27% 91.73% 11.95% Software for managing records 13.48% 86.52% 2.26% 97.74% 11.22% Word processing software 15.73% 84.27% 4.51% 95.49% 11.22% Blogs and/or wikis 93.82% 6.18% 83.46% 16.54% 10.36% Videoconferencing unit 95.51% 4.49% 87.97% 12.03% 7.54% Social networking 96.07% 3.93% 90.23% 9.77% 5.84% Web sites/Internet 3.93% 96.07% 0.75% 99.25% 3.18%

PAGE 66

66 Hence there is not have enough evidence to claim that the model with teaching setting fits better, so after controlling for school context, standards, region of US, years of teachin g experi e nce, and primary dis ab ility of students it cannot be concluded that there is an association between teaching setting and technology usage. Table 4 12 Possible factors associated with level of technology used by teachers for instruction deviance df LRT p value Full model 404.15 Teaching setting 407.85 5 3.70 0.59 School context 406.04 2 1.88 0.39 ISTE standards 406.82 1 2.67 0.10 Region of US 409.45 3 5.30 0.15 Years of teaching experience 405.86 1 1.71 0.19 Primary disability of stud ents 406.35 3 2.20 0.53 The full model with effect of school context has a deviance equal to the 404.15 and the reduced model without region has a deviance equal to the 406.04. The difference between deviances equal 1.89 with df=2. This likelihood ratio statistic for testing the association between school context and technology usage controlling for teaching setting, ISTE standards, region of US, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of students is not significant with the p value of 0.39. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to claim that the model with school context is a better fit. After controlling for teaching setting, standards, region of US years of teaching experience, and primary disabil i ty of students it cannot be concluded that there is an association between school context and technology usage. The full model with effect of ISTE standards has a deviance equal to the 404.15 and the reduced model without region has a deviance equal to the 406.82. The difference between devi ances equal 2.67 with df=1. This likelihood ratio statistic for testing the association between ISTE standards and technology usage controlling for teaching setting, school context, region of US, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of stud ents is not significant with the p

PAGE 67

67 value of 0.10. Based on these results there is not enough evidence to claim that the model with ISTE standards fits better. After controlling for teaching setting, school context, region of US, years of teaching experi e n ce, and primary disability of students it cannot be concluded that there is an association between ISTE standards and technology usage. The full model with effect of region of US has a deviance equal to the 404.15 and the reduced model without region has a deviance equal to the 409.45 The difference between deviances equal 5.30 with df=3. This likelihood ratio statistic for testing the association between region and technology usage controlling for teaching setting, school context, ISTE standards, years of teaching experience, and primary d i sability of students is not significant with the p value of 0.15. Currently, not enough evidence exists to claim that model with region fits better. Thus, after controlling for teaching setting, school context, standard s, years of teaching experi e nce, and primary disability of students. Based on these results it cannot be concluded that there is an association between region and technology usage. The full model with effect of years of teaching experience has a deviance equal to the 404.15 and the reduced model without region has a deviance equal to the 405.86. The difference between deviances equal 1.71 with df=1. This likelihood ratio statistic for testing the association between region and technology usage controlling for teaching setting, school context, ISTE standards, region of US, and primary disability of students is not significant with the p value of 0.15. Not enough evidence exists to support that the model with region fits better so after controlling for teach ing setting, school context, standards, region of the US, and primary disability of students. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there is an association between years of teaching experience and technology usage.

PAGE 68

68 The full model with effect of primary d isability of students has a deviance equal to the 404.15 and the reduced model without region has a deviance equal to the 405.86. The difference between deviances equal 1.71 with df=3. This likelihood ratio statistic for testing the association between reg ion and technology usage controlling for teaching setting, school context, ISTE standards, region of US, and years of teaching experience is not significant with the p value of 0.53. Based on these results there is not enough evidence to claim that model with region fits better so after controlling for teaching setting, school context, standards, region of US, and years of teaching experience. Hence, it cannot be concluded that there is an association between region and technology usage. Open Ended Respo nses At the end of the survey, space was provided for participants to share additional informatio n about their use of technology Of the 311 completed surveys, 76 respondents provided additional information The question asked participants to share additi onal information about use of technology the technology available in your school. Almost one quarter of the respondents ( 24% ) shared information in this space The following themes emerged from an analysis of the responses : distribution of r esources, specific technologies used for classroom instruction, professional development, and financial barriers to technology integration T he results of this question are as follows Some respondents shared that technology was not equitable distributed t o special special education teachers as real teachers. So we are not given the equipment or training to use

PAGE 69

69 s that might T hi distributed in an unfair way. The honor/college prep teachers and students get the technology. Some respondents listed specif ic technologies they used that were not named in the survey. Some of the specific technologies being used for instruction that respondents mentioned were: iPads, A+, Academy of Math, Skype, Jamestown Reading Navigator, Mobi, Kurzweil, First Robotics, Batt lebots, Maya Animation software, ELMO, Prometheus Board, Smart Board, and MECA. Some of these items were listed on the survey by their generic terms rather than their brand names (e.g., tablet vs. iPad, interactive whiteboard vs. Smart Board). Professiona l development was another cluster that emerged from the qualitative data. Some respondents stated that since they were personally tech sav v y they were called on to provide professional development on technology for t heir colleagues. Another teacher went on to explain that at their school site only the teachers who were considered tech sav v y were given opportunit i es to attend professional development in technology. This same teacher a ls o shared, There is a great need for activities focused on how to u se technology as teaching tools how to professional development in technology but were also willing to take these offerings on their own time versus during the sch ool day. Finally, financial issues were described by nine participants as impacting how much or have access to technology at school.

PAGE 70

70 teacher summed up budget issues and how they affect technology in a very succinct manner, Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which secondary special education teachers were using technology for instruction with their students. This was accomplished through administering a survey to secondary special education teacher s from across the United States. The survey consisted of close ended questions addressing various types of technologies available for classroom use, how these technologies were being utilized for classroom instruction, and what types of technologies teache rs were asking students to use in school for learning and an open response question was included as well First, data were entered and then cleaned en sure accuracy Second, an inter coder reliability check was completed on 10% of the completed surveys. Th ird, frequency data were the ISTE NETS*T performance standards and to discern what technologies secondary special education teachers are using for instructio n. Fourth, multiple logistic regression tests were used setting, school context, familiarity with the ISTE performance standards, region of the United States th at they live in, years of teaching experience, and the primary disability of their students. No statistically significant results were found. Chapter 4 presented the results of the data analysis in three sections. First descriptive and inferential statis tics from the sample were presented. Second, descriptive statistics were used to answer research questions one and two. Next, multiple logistic regressions were used in order to answer research question three. The following chapter presents a discussion of the conclusions and the implications of the research findings.

PAGE 71

71 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine h ow secondary special education teachers are using technology for instruction A survey was conducted to answer this question. Chapter 4 presented the results of the analyses of survey responses. This final chapter will provide an interpretation of th os e results and discuss their implications. As stated in Chapter 2, c urrent research indicates that general education teachers are making attempts to utilize technology in and for classroom instruction. They are using technology to keep records, communicate with parents and students, create materials for student use, and teach content to their students. T hese t eachers are also asking students to access technology as a means of enhancing their learning. However, t here is a lack of research conce rning how special educators use technology for instruction. Several studies specifically excluded special educators from their samples ( e.g., B ecker, 2001; Ne iderhauser et al. 2007). There is need for research that examines more closely how secondary special education teachers are using technology for instruction so that possible conclusions may be drawn about how to improve our educational syst ems pertaining to preparing students with disabili ties for life after high school. This survey was completed as a means of gaining knowledge of what is currently happening in our secondary special education classrooms pertaining to how technology is being used for instruction. The survey created for this study was used to gather data about secondary special sroom instruction. The instrument combined survey elements from the ology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (Gray, Thomas & Lewis, 2010) and the Computer Usage Survey (Smarkola, 2008). Gray et al. provide d national data on the use and availability of educational technology for teachers in

PAGE 72

72 public elementary and secondary schools in the United States. Sma teacher s usage and acceptance of technology by grade level. These questions were then categorized using the ISTE Standards for Teachers (ISTE, 2008). The survey for this study included many of the same fe atures and employed both closed and open ended questions. Closed ended questions included demographic information, types of technology that teachers have access to in and out of school, and types of technologies most frequently used for instruction. Open ended questions offered participants an opportunity to share additional information concerning their personal experiences with instructional technology if they chose to do so This study addressed thre e research questions: 1. What technologies are secondary special education teachers using? More specifically, what technologies are special education teachers using for instructional purposes, and what technologies are they asking their students to use for learning? 2. How does secondary special education teacher 3. What factors (and teaching setting, school context, familiarity with the ISTE NETS*T standards, region of the United States that the teacher lived in, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of students) are associated with technology usage for instruction? was disseminated to a random s ample of secondary special education teachers in the United States. Summary and Interpretations of Findings The interpretation of the findings is presented as follows. First, the types of technologies that secondary special education teachers are using fo usage of technology is explored as it relates to the ISTE performance indicators. Then, the factors that are associated with technology usage for instruction are discussed. Finally,

PAGE 73

73 implications of the findings f or policy and practice, and recommendations for future research and practice are shared. Research Question1 The survey identified which technologies secondary special education teachers are using for instruction by asking two categories of questions. The first category of questions addressed how teachers were using technology themselves for teaching, planning, communication, and record keeping. The second category addressed how teachers were asking their students to use technology for learning. technology usage. Past research has explored the ways in which general education teachers are using technology for instruction ( e.g., Adelman, et al., 2002; Barron et al. 2003, Becker, 2001; Department of Education, 2009; Franklin, 2007; Neiderhauser & S toddart, 2001; Neiderhauser & Lindstrom, 2006; Neiderhauser, Lindstrom & Stobel, 2007; Smarkola, 2008; U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2000; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004; Wurster, 2009) The next section will report on the ways in which the secondary special educators in this study are using technology for instruction with students who have disabilities. These results are compared with findings from prior research involving general education teachers. In 20 10, Gray et al. reported that 34 % of the secondary general education teachers they surveyed stated that they or their students used computers often during classroom instruction. In this study, 37% of secondary special education teachers reported using laptop com puters during instruction, and 63% used desktop computers Although this increase may be due to inherent diff erences between general and special education teachers or students, there are other possible explanations, as well. For example, g iven that computer use in the home continues to increase (Zickuhr, 2011), the increase in instructional use of computers may be, at

PAGE 74

74 (Burns & Poleman, 2006) One t savvy to the s personal interest and skill While 97% of the teachers in the Gray e t al. (2010) survey stated that they used computers for word process ing only 8 9% of the secondary special education tea chers in this current study used word processing software often Similarly, 73 % of the teachers compared with only 67% in the current study. The difference in results between the Gray et al. study and the current study could be due to the fact teachers now have a wider range of technology tools at their disposal. For example, instead of creating a PowerPoint presentation on a web site from a reputable organization such as National Geographic stream video that has been created by ocea nographers and link to blog sites that students can Open ended responses shared by participants support this conclusion. Participants listed specific technologies being used for instruction that go beyo nd word processing and presentation software Some of the tech nologies were: iPads, A+, Academy of Math, Skype, Jamestown Reading Navigator, Mobi, Kurzweil, First Robotics, Battlebots, Maya Animation software, ELMO, Prometheus Board, Smart Board, and MECA. The growing range of technology options indicates that teacher education and professional development opportunities must include much more than the basics. The rate of change will make it difficult for teacher educators to keep up. Perhaps more of the responsibility for teacher learning should rest on the shoulders of the technology developers. Given the large number of teachers who responded that many of the technologies did not meet

PAGE 75

75 their needs, part of this professional development should be devoted to helping teachers see the instructional uses of newer technologies. In this study 54 % of the teachers reported using database management software the Gray et al. (2010) study who used databas e management software In this study, 91% of the teachers reported using software entering or viewing attendance records. In this study, 51% of the teachers reported using teachers in the Gray et al. study. These results show little difference betw een general and A finding of note pertains to how often teachers used the Internet for instruction. Nearly all (97%) of the special education teachers who responded to this survey reported that the y used technology in this manner with their students This finding is in contrast to what OERI observed in 2000 when they reported that only 66% of the general education teachers surveyed indicated they used computers or the Internet for instruction durin g class time. Given that there are so many more ways to access the Internet compared to a decade ago, this increase is not surprising. Teachers today, both in general education and special education, are more likely to own smart phones or tablets have mul tiple computers and technology tools in their classrooms and in their homes. They are more technology enabled themselves due to the evolution of life in the 21 st Century. Teachers may also have more access to and proficiency using tools and techn ologies o ther than the Internet (Project Tomorrow, 2011). Some of the technology devices and software that the participants in the current study shared having access to in their classrooms were

PAGE 76

76 Prometheus Boards, Kurzweil, iPad, Elmo, Dragon Speak Naturally, Mobi t ablet, Smart Board, and they stated that they used these for instruction with their students. Some of these technologies did not exist in 2000, or they were not very widely used at that time. How teachers have students use technology. A comparison betwee n the research that has taken place over the past several years (Barron et al. 2003; DOE, 2009; OERI, 2000) and the current study demonstrates that students computers to conduct research has increased substantially In the current stu dy 7 8% of the teachers reported having their students complete res earch using computers, while only 40 % of the teachers in the Barron (2 003) study and 41% of the teachers in the OERI 2000 study reported using computers in this way This increase in technology usage as a means of expression in school could be due to many factors. Some of the factors that could explain this are; more computers in classrooms (Becker, 2001 ; DOE, 2009 ) increased Internet connectivity in schools, class web sites and blogs, smart phone owners hip (P roject Tomorrow, 2011) tablet computers in the classroom and other such technologies being readily available. As newer technologies become smaller and less expensive they tend to find their way into the hands of more users, and eventually into our s chools. Using technology as a means of providing students with a platform in which they can practice basic skills has been a mainstay in education for several years (Jeffs, Morrison, Messingheimer, Rizza, & Banister, 2003; Neiderhauser, 2006). However, the current study revealed that 87 % of special education teachers are using technology to have students practice basic skills, compared to 35% (DOE, 2009) and 12% (OERI, 2000) of general education teachers in the previous studies This difference between general and special education could be due to special education teachers using computers as a tool for management and individualization (Jeffs et al., 2003) That is, when a special education classroom has a wide range of student ability

PAGE 77

77 levels, a teache r may find computers as one of the more efficient ways to meet individual needs (DOE, 2009; Project Tomorrow, 2010) Given that many secondary special education students lag behind their general education peers in the mastery of basic skills, using comput ers for practice may be appropriate ; however, an over emphasis on drill and practice at the expense of higher order thinking and problem solving may not adequately prepare students for postsecondary options Another factor that may have led to this increa se over time has to do with high stakes testing. In the current era of high stakes testing and accountability more and more students are being placed in remedial classes when they do not pass standardized tests and technology can be seen as a tool to pro vide individualized remediation to these students (Jeffs et al., 2003). Research Question 2 Of particular interest in this study was how s econdary special education tea technology relates t o the International Society f or Technology i n Educa Standards f or Teachers This issue was addressed in this study by categorizing survey questions according to the ISTE*T Standards (see Table 4 10 for categories). According to Rational System theorists (Barnard, 1938; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Oga wanda et al., 1995; Ogawanda et al., 1999; Scott, 1981) organizations such as schools, need to have goal specificity and formalization of those goals. When organizations formalize goals it is an attempt to make the behavior of the people within the organiz ation more standardized. In theory, standards o r goals should guide what is to be done by an organization such as a school. According to Ogawa et al. (2003) the Rational Perspective aligns with the idea of using curriculum standards to aid school reform. E ducational standards are now commonplace in education. The following section will review the research findings of this study and how they relate to the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T)( ISTE, 2008)

PAGE 78

78 Stan dard 1: Facilitate and Inspire S tudent Learning and Creativity. In this study, 76% of the special education teachers reported using technology to model creative and innovative thinking with their students. This finding is consistent with Barron et al. (2003), who reported that 38% of secondary general education teachers used technology for the purpose of facilitating and inspiring student learning and creativity. It is encouraging to note that secondary special education teachers are meeting this standard as are their peers who teach non disabled students. Another encouraging result was the finding that 69% of the teachers in the current study were using technology to have their students solve problems as compared to the OERI (2000) finding that only 20% of teachers were using t echnology to have students solve problems. Similarly, 85% of the teachers in this study had their students use technology to explore real world issues, and 70% encouraged them to collaborate with others via technology. When it comes to collaboration one Standard 2: Design and Develop Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments. As stated previously in the literature review several studies have shown that general education teachers are increasing their use of technology for instructional purposes of creating digital age learning experiences and assessments (DOE, 2009; Gray et al., 2010; OERI, 2000). In 2000 the OERI reported 44% of instructional materials, 19% used technology for gathering information for lessons, and 44% used technology for classroom instruction. In 2009 the DOE reported that 47% of the teachers in their study used technology to develop curriculum, 39% presented concepts to students using technology, and 38% created or gave assessments using technology. By 2010, Gray et al.

PAGE 79

79 reported 73% of their teachers were using technol ogy to present content, and 43% used software for administering tests. The results of this study indicate that the increase in the use of technology for designing and developing digital age learning experiences and assessments is continuing and the increase applies in special educa tion, as well as general education. In this study, 51% of the teachers in this study reported using technology for administering tests and 67% reported using technology for creating presentations. Although only 37% of the secondary special education teac hers in this study reported using image or graphic editing technology, and only 34% reported u sing simulations or visualization programs these technologies are still relatively new, and use by more than one third of special educators in this survey is en couraging Standard 3: Model Digital Age Work and Learning Teachers in the current study are modeling digital age work and learning through being fluent with technology systems, collaborating with others, and modeling effective uses of technol ogy in a v ariety of ways (see Table 4 10) For example, 90% of special education teachers in the study report using e mail to communicate wit ) reported that only 48% used e mail to communicate with pare nts By the time students reach high school, teacher parent contact is often limited. For special education teachers, however, parent contact is necessary for IEP reviews, progress monitoring, and behavior plans so the difference between this study of special educators and the previous study of general education teachers is not surprising This was not the only area in which special education teachers used technology more frequently to model digital age work and learning. For exam In the Gray et al. study, only 59% of

PAGE 80

80 the secondary general education teachers surveyed used as part of their instruction This difference cannot be as easily explained by inherent differences between general and special education. Although secondary special education teachers may use some technologies frequently over 60% of the bulletin boards, teacher web site, blogs, instant messaging, texting or social networks as a means of communication with parents or students. technologies indicated that it was because they did not meet instructional needs, another reason that these technologies are infrequently implemented may h ave to do with the restrictions that are placed on teache rs by schools districts. Eigh t teachers wrote that their districts did not permit them to use social networking sites with their parents or students and that these sites were blocked at their schools. In recent years some states, such as Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri have passed l aws that prohibit teachers from communicating with students using social media (Walker, 2012). At the same time school districts in these states are facing concerns that they are infringing upon the First Amendment rights of thei r teachers and students (W alker ). Standard 4: Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility. The teachers in this study implemented Standard 4 through providing access to digital tools and resources (85%) differentiating instruction using technol ogy (85%) promoting Internet safety (79%) teaching legal and ethical use of digital information and technology (63%), and promoting digital etiquette (63%) This finding is in contrast to Neiderhauser et al. (200 7), when they reported that many of the te achers in their sample of technology using teachers did not address this standard in their instruction (80%) There are several factors that could explain this change over the past five years. Perhaps as our world moves to an ever

PAGE 81

81 increasing reliance on te chnology for many things, more educators are recognizing the need to teach their students how to act and interact appropriately with technology and people that they encounter while using technology. Secondary special educators may feel more obligated to te ach these skill explicitly, while general education teachers may assume students will acquire these skills on their own. In addition to this, teachers today may feel that they have a greater obligation to prepare secondary special education students for en try into a digital age workforce. Standard 5: Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership. Prior research (e.g., PPSS, 2003 ; OERI, 2000 ) indicates that general education teachers who are learning about ways to implement technology through professional development are more likely to use technology in their classrooms. W hile the special education teachers in this study were asked only to report on how many hours of technology related professional development they received from either district sponsored i n service activities (mean = 15.28 hours) c ollege or university coursework (mean = 7.77 hours), or private or independent training activities (mean = 8.19 hours) nearly all (280 of the 311 respondents) report ed that had participated in at least one of th e three forms of professional development during the past year In open ended responses, study participants lamented the lack of personnel to provide professional development to secondary special education teachers, training being provided only professional development as well as time to practice using new skills and tools. One respondent Training in technology needs to be expanded to every teache These findings are similar to those of other studies (Adelman et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2010; McGrail, 2006; Neiderhauser et al., 2001; OERI, 2000; PPSS, 2003; Staples et al., 2005;

PAGE 82

82 Vannetta et al., 2004) that have also indicated that the greatest need is obtaining more professional development. The ISTE Standards for Teachers are intended to promote effective use of instructio nal technology. Findings from this study indicate that, while technology use in education is increasing, it still lags far behind technology use in other sectors. Perhaps one reason that many technologies are never used is that the goals of the ISTE NETS *T are written in very general goals are general in nature then it is more difficult to pursue those goals. With more specific technology standards, schools would have a clearer understanding of expectations concerning technology. Research Question 3: What Factors a re Associated w ith Technology Usage f or Instruction ? The final research question in this study addressed the factors associated with secondary spec Participating teachers were categorized as either high or low technology users and analyses were conducted to determine whether technology use was associated with factors such as teaching settin g, school context, familiarity with ISTE Standards for T eachers, what region of the United Sates the teachers currently lived and worked in, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of the students they taught. The results of the current study determined that based on this sample of teachers none of the above factors are associated with technology usage. Research conducted by Barron et al. (2003) and Gray et al. (2010) examined how general education teachers were using technology for instruc tion by content area, and other researchers (Adelman, et al., 2002; Barron et al. 2003, Becker, 2001; DOE 2009; Franklin, 2007; Neiderhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Neiderhauser & Lindstrom, 2006; Neiderhauser, Lindstrom & Stobel, 2007; Smarkola, 2008; OERI 2 000; Wurster, 2009) have looked at how technology

PAGE 83

83 usage varies by grade level This variable could not be analyzed in the current study because nearly all of the secondary special education teachers responding taught more than one grade level and more tha n one content area. This study attempted to explore whether the special education classroom setting was a factor that influenced technology usage, but no effect was found The current study and the research done by Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck (2001) deter years of experience was not a factor that influenced or impacted technology usage for instruction. However this is in contrast to the findings of Franklin (2007), Hsu et al. (2007), and OERI (2000) which all indicated that teachers w ho had three or fewer years of teaching experience were more likely to use technology for instruction. Due to these conflicting results it may be prudent to explore this issue further. The ISTE Performance Indicators for Teachers (NETS*T) are standards tha t have been developed by the International Society for Technology in Education. In 2008 research highlighted that even teachers who had no prior knowledge of the NETS could foster learning and collaboration using technology with their st udents. The same could be said of the teachers in the current study. This conclusion was reached based on the fact that familiarity with the ISTE NETS*T was not a factor that influenced technology usage for instruction by secondary special education teache rs. Implications for Policy and Practice This study yields several important implications for policy and practice. Although findings indicate increasing technology usage, there remains much room for improvement. In order to prepare students to be success ful in the 21 st century workplace, it is essential that they have a working knowledge of common technologies and feel comfortable learning about new

PAGE 84

84 technologies as they become available. By examining some of the barriers to technology usage uncovered in this study, policy makers and practitioners can address these issues. Survey responses indicate that a primary reason that teachers did not use particular both responses to survey questions 7 and 8 and in the open ended responses at the end of the survey. For example, 66% of respondents indicated that they never used classroom response systems, and of those, 47% indicated that the reason was that the technology was not available. Similarly 68% never used tablet computers, and of those, 59% indicated that tablet computers were not available to them. Several participants in this study stated that at their schools the special education teachers and students wer e not given the same access to technology and technology tools as general education teac ur district does not consider special education teachers as real teachers, so we are not given the equipment or training to use technolog y in th echnology is more available in the went on to share how the honor s or college prep aratory classes and teachers got all the technology or that special education students and teachers came last when it came to technology. Teachers cannot be expected to implement technology or technology tools if they do not have access to them. It is important to ensure that these technologies and technology to ols are equitably spread between general education teachers and students and special education teachers and students. If students with disabilities are to succeed in modern society, they must be afforded at least the same opportunities as their typically a chieving peers. Schools officials should look carefully for instances of systematic exclusion from opportunities. Such exclusion poses ethical and legal problems for districts, as well as placing students with disabilities at greater risk for failure. I t is

PAGE 85

85 also important to examine funding formulas to ensure that schools are equipped with appropriate and up to date technologies. Another reason for low technology usage is that some teachers do not feel they possess the knowledge or skills needed to imple ment technology solutions effectively. For example, 74% of the respondents indicated that they never use blogs or wikis, and of those, 11% indicated that they needed more training. Similarly, 66% never used content management systems, and 13% of those in dicated that they needed more training. As demonstrated by prior research (e.g., McGrail, 2006 ), professional development is a key to promoting effective use of technology. Frequent needs assessments can help districts identify appropriate areas of focus for professional development. Also, because needs assessments may not uncover those instances where a need exists but is not perceived due to lack of awareness. That is, teachers may not understand how a particular technology could be useful to them bec ause they have never seen it in action. For example, in this study, 23% of teachers who never used smart phones for instruction reported that this was because they did not meet their instructional needs. Similarly, 30% of those who never used blogs and w ikis indicated that these technologies did not meet their needs. Professional development specifically geared toward raising awaren ess of smart phone applications, blogs, and wikis for classroom instruction may be needed. Technology specialists may also find it beneficial to track usage of technologies following professional development to identify where there may be a need for further training. Finally, it is important to recognize that professional development needs may vary considerably based on such factors as prior experience and expertise, access to the technology for practice and implementation, and overall comfort level with technology use. Appropriate scaffolding and follow up in the form of coaching should be planned for any professional develo pment effort.

PAGE 86

86 It is also important to consider how the necessary professional development might be provided, when technologies are changing so rapidly. One possible solution may be to require technology developer to provide professional training as a cond ition of purchase. Currently, it is common practice in many states and districts to require textbook publishers to provide professional development for teachers as part of the purchase agreement. Because technological options are replacing textbooks in m any settings, this model may be appropriately adapted. T o address the specific problem of teachers who do not have the knowledge or skills necessary to create and maintain a class web site, o ne solution might be to follow the lead of Fr eedom High School in California. At this school, students help teachers maintain their district issued web site. Students digital arts class work directly with teachers by designing teacher web site, proposing new ideas for their web sites content and format s and then once the teacher agrees the students then completes the work (EdTech, 2011). Students may be a source of support for teachers in using other technologies, as well. Recognizing the value students offer can lead to more efficient use of resource s and more effective use of technology. Finally, given the large percentage of respondents who indicated that they were using technology for drill and practice of basic skills, it is important for professional development to address other ways that technol ogy may be used with students in special education. An emphasis on higher order skills and strategies and on problem solving will better prepare students with disabilities for life after high school. Implications for Future Research This study answered se veral questions, but it also raised new questions. Using the findings from this study, several additional studies could be planned. Although this study identified which technologies were being used and which were not, it did not explore the match between classroom needs and the use of specific technologies. That is,

PAGE 87

87 it would be beneficial to know whether the technologies being used were appropriate for the meeting of the technology. While research exists concerning specific technologies used by students with special needs in schools, especially assistive technology, there is litt le research that examines what factors are affecting technology usage by secondary special education teachers. More research needs to be conducted in this area. Given that none of the factors addressed in this study had a significant influence on technolog y usage, further exploration in this area is warranted. In addition, several compared to those who used te and how their usage is associated with the predictor factors (teaching setting, school context, ISTE standard familiarity, region of US they live and work in, years of teaching experience, and primary disability of students). There is clearly much room for increased usage, b ut without full understanding of the barriers, it is impossible to effective ly promote increased usage. Furthermore, research that looks more deeply at why teachers do or do not use certain types of technology could aid our understanding of what our stude nts are being exposed to in high school. In future studies, providing space after each question may prompt respondents to elaborate on their answer choices. Future research that invites participants to be part of follow up phone calls or emails may give us a better understanding of what is happening in our secondary special education classrooms concerning technology. This information could help us better determine if we are adequately preparing our students for life and work in the 21 st Century. Additionall y, research that exa

PAGE 88

88 response, presenting information, review of skills) may increase our knowledge of what our secondary special education students are experiencing in our schools. Another point that may merit further research were the responses from teachers who stated that special education was not receiving the same types of access to and training in technology. It is important to uncover why these discrepancies exist in order to ensure that they are eliminated. Another study that may lead to a deeper understanding of secondary special education technology usage in one or more of the afore the same educational experience. Such research could provide a broader and clearer picture of technology use in the classrooms of secondary special education students and teachers. Limitations Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, the response rate for this survey was low (31.7%), and the sample only included 311 high school special education teachers. Surveys involving a larger number of high school special education teachers may produce different results. Additionally, non respondent data was not obtained so non response bias may limit the generalizability of the results The fact that the survey re sults presented here are based on self reported data is another limitation. There may also exist a bias in the results towards teachers who are interested in technology and therefore took the time to complete the survey versus those who chose not to respon d. Participants in this study were also given a monetary incentive to complete the survey, this could have resulted in survey results that have a social desirability bias.

PAGE 89

89 Another limitation was the lack of follow up with survey respondents in order to de velop Follow up with respondents would have allowed for more robust conclusions Conclusion toda st century technologies into their curriculums in order to prepare our students for their fut ures. This study sought to explore how secondary special education teachers were attempting to meet this goal. The secondary special education teachers in this study were using technology for instructional purposes. They were using computers, projection d evices, and the Internet to teach content to their students. In addition to this, the participants in this study wer e also asking their students to use technology for learning. The types of activities that secondary special education students are being ask ed to do using technology are: (a) word processing; (b) creating graphic or visual displays; (c) practicing basic skills; (d) conducting research; (e) corresponding with others; (f) solving problems; and (g) developing multimedia presentations. It is also important to note that the participants in this study are also meeting the performance indicators of the ISTE NETS. These teachers are using technology to facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity, to design and develop digital age learning ex periences and assessments, to model digital age work and learning, to promote digital citizenship and responsibility, and they are engaging in professional growth and leadership. However, this study did not find that factors such as special education clas sroom setting, school context, ISTE standard familiarity, region of the United States that the teachers lived in, years of teaching experience or primary disability of the students taught were associated with

PAGE 90

90 whether teachers were high or low technology us ers. This coupled with the fact that these teachers and students are using technology for learning can be viewed as a positive sign that our students with disabilities are using technology as a tool during learning. While this survey research cannot provi de a complete picture of what is occurring in every secondary special education classroom concerning technology, it does provide an indication of what is happening in sample classrooms. These findings are important because technology is impacting larger an d larger pieces of our everyday lives. By teaching our students how to learn and grow with the help of technology and its related tools, we are preparing them for life in the 21 st Century. Technology allows access to information in real time versus having to use materials that may be outdated in textbooks provided. It provides students with multiple platforms for expressing their knowledge that go beyond the confines of a pen and paper. It can give a voice to a child with Autism who is unable to speak to pe ers due to their disability, it can help a child with dyslexia access advanced texts, it can provide immediate, intensive, interventions to a struggling learner in a class of 30 students. Technology is not the answer to every problem that students have, bu t it can level the playing field a little for a child with a disability. Technology is becoming more and more integrated in our daily lives, from the phones that we use to communicate, to the computers that we use to shop from the comfort of our homes, to the way we stay current on events happening around the globe. Preparing our children to survive and thrive in a digital world is now as important as teaching them how to cross the street safely and based on the results of this study our special education teachers are doing their part to prepare their students with special needs to become a part of this digital world. This dissertation research provides an exploratory look at what technologies secondary special education teachers are using with their stu dents and how they are using them. It provides

PAGE 91

91 us with a glimpse of what 311 teachers and their students are doing with technology during the school day. This research can serve as a sort of GPS navigation system that tells us where we currently stand tech nology wise in the secondary special education classrooms in our country. More importantly it can help us plan our next steps. Our final destination can and should be reached by providing our students with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate a d igital landscape.

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD MATERIALS

PAGE 93

93

PAGE 94

94

PAGE 95

95

PAGE 96

96 Survey Cover Letter with Consent Dear Secondary Special Education Teacher, I am writing to ask for your help in understanding how secondary special education teachers are usi ng technology for instruction. I would like to invite you to participate in a survey about your technology usage in instruction. The survey should only take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete and your responses will be anonymous. There are no known risks to you for participating in this study, and you may withdraw at any time without penalty. This study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about this su rvey please feel free to ca ll me at 352 359 0731 or you can reach me by email at manabet@ufl.edu IRB office at 352 392 0433 for questions about your rights as a research participant. By sharing y our thoughts and ideas about how you use technology for instruction you will be helping me out a great deal use of technology As a way of saying thank you a small token of appreciation ha s also been included. I hope you enjoy being part of this survey and I look forward to receiving your response. Many Thanks, Mary Anne Steinberg Univer sity of Florida Doctoral Candidate Please sign this copy and return. Keep the second copy for your rec ords. I have read the procedure described above and I have received a copy of this letter. I ___________________________, voluntarily agree to participate in this study. _______________________________________________ ______________________ Signat ure Date

PAGE 97

97 Focus Group Protocol and Expert Review Protocol Thank you so much for being here today. My name is Mary Anne Steinberg and I am a doctoral candidate from the University of Florida and I am here to facilitate this group. To express my appreciation for you coming here, I brought you each _______. First, I would like to ask each of you to int roduce yourselves. The reason I have invited you to come here is so that I can begin to collect information about your experiences as middle school special educators and how you utilize technology for instruction. Before I begin collecting information fro m a large number of middle school special education teachers, I would like to learn, from conversations with a few of you, about your teaching. This focus group should last no longer than one hour. I would like to tape record the session miss anything. The tape will not be heard by anyone other than my self and the findings will only be released in the form of general topics with no identifiable personal information. Focus Group Questions: 1. Standard 1: How do you use technology, your know ledge of subject matter, teaching and learning to facilitate and inspire student learning ? Possible probes: How do you use technology in your classroom to convey content knowledge to your students? What types of technology do you use (laptop, Smart Boar d, etc. )? Can you share an example? How do you use technology to engage your students in exploring real world issues and solving authentic problems? How do you model collaborative knowledge construction in face to face and virtual environments? 2. Standard 1 : How do you use technology, your knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning to facilitate and inspire and creativity ? Possible probes: What types of activities do you ask your students to do that use technology? What types of technology do you ask your students to use? Can you give me an example of an assignment that you have asked your students to do that incorporates technology? How is technology used to promote student reflection using collaborative tools to conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes?

PAGE 98

98 3. Standard 2: How do you design and develop digital age learning experiences for your students? Possible probes: What technologies do you use to create experiences for your students? Can you provide examples? How do you adapt relevant learning experiences to incorporate digital tools and resources? Can you describe the process you use to develop technology enriched learning environments that enable students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in their educational experiences? 4. Standard 2: How do you design and develop digital age learning assessments for your students? Possible probes : How do you assess your students using technology? How do you provide students with multiple and varied formative (progress monitoring: done to adjust teaching) and summative assessments (end of chapter ow) that are aligned with content standards and technology standards? How do these assessments inform your instruction? 5. Standard 3: How do you model digital age work and learning for your students? Possible probes: What types of activities do you model for your students using technology? What technology do you use most often? What web sites do you visit most often as a model for your students? How do you collaborate with students, peers, parents, and the community using technology? How do you model effe ctive use of current and emerging digital tools to locate, analyze, evaluate, and use information resources to support research and learning? 6. Standard 4: How do you promote and model digital age citizenship and responsibility for your students? Possible p robes: How do you teach your students to be responsible consumers of information gained via the internet? Do you instruct them about responsible uses of information gotten on the internet (plagiarism, file sharing, etc. )? How do you promote and model dig ital age etiquette and responsible social interactions? How do you develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness through the use of technology? Does your school or county have policies and procedures for this?

PAGE 99

99 7. Standard 5: How do you engag e in professional growth and leadership in effective use of digital tools and resources? Possible probes: What types of professional development on technology have you had in the last year? Do you learn about technology in ways other than professional d evelopment? What are your current needs for professional development about technology? What local or global learning communities are you a part of that explore creative applications of technology to improve student learning? Is there anything else you wou ld like to tell me about your usage of technology for instruction? Again, thank you for your time.

PAGE 100

100 Focus Group Invite Letter Dear Secondary Special Education Teacher, I am wr iting to ask for your help in understanding how secondary special education teachers are using technology for instruction. I would like to invite you to participate in a focus group about your technology usage in instruction. The focus group should only t ake about 20 30 minutes to complete and it will be completed at your school. The focus group interviews will be recorded electronically. Your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential. I will be the only person with access to the recordings a nd any reporting of your responses will be without any identifying information. The recordings will be kept in a locked file cabinet and will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study. You may also be asked to participate in a follow up interview to cl arify your comments. There are no known risks to you for participating in this study, and you may withdraw from participation at any time without penalty. In compensation for your participation, you will receive a 4GB USB flash drive. This study has bee n reviewed and approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about this survey please feel free to call me at 352 359 0731 or you can reach me by email at manabet@ufl.edu 392 0433 for questions about your rights as a research participant. By sharing your thoughts and ideas about how you use technology for instruction you will be helping my research, and you w I hope you enjoy being part of this focus group and I look forward to receiving your response. Many Thanks, Mary Anne Steinberg University of Florida Doctoral Candidate Please sign this copy and return. Keep the second copy for your records. I have read the procedure described above and I have received a copy of this letter. I, ___________________________, voluntarily agree to participate in this study. ______________________ _________________________ ______________________ Signature Date

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX B FINAL SURVEY

PAGE 102

102

PAGE 103

103

PAGE 104

104

PAGE 105

105

PAGE 106

106

PAGE 107

107

PAGE 108

108 fold here University of Florida SESPECS PO Box 117050, 1403 Norman Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 7050 Mary Anne Steinberg University of Florida Special Education, School Psychology & Early Childhood Studies PO Box 117050, 1403 Norman Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 7050

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX C COMPLETE LIST OF VAR IABLES USED FOR ANAL YSIS IN RESEARCH QUE STION 3

PAGE 110

110 Survey question 7: This section asks about the frequency with which you use various technologies for instruction. If mark the reason(s) why not. Internet connection (hardwired) Internet connection (wireless) Videoconferencing unit Interactive whiteboard Classroom response system Digital camera (still or vid eo) MP3 player/iPod Handheld device Streaming video LCD projector Content management system Cell phones/smart phones eReaders Tablet computers Laptop computers Desktop computers Survey question 8: During the current school year how frequently have you used the following technology tools for planning or implementing classroom instruction? Web sites/Internet Word processing software Database management software Spreadsheets for graphing programs Software for managing student records Software for desktop publi shing Graphics, image editing software Software for creating presentation Software for administering tests Simulations and visualization programs Drill/practice programs or tutorials Subject specific software programs Blogs and/or wikis Social networking S urvey question 18: Which most closely describes your current teaching setting? Self contained classroom (same group of students all day) Pull out/resource room (students come to you for part of the school day) Co teaching (in the same classroom as a genera l education teacher) Consultation (provide support for students and teachers) Genera education (not currently in a special education position) Other (please specify)

PAGE 111

111 Survey question 20: Which best describes your current school context? Urban Rural Suburban Survey question 22: Are you familiar with the International Society for Technology in Yes No Address Labels: Region of US Midwest Northeast South West Survey question 13: Please indicate the total number of years you hav e taught (include the current school year, but do not include student teaching experience). Number of years:_____ Survey question 19: What is the most frequently occurring disability among your students? Learning disabilities Emotional/behavior disorders I ntellectual disabilities Other (please specify)

PAGE 112

112 REFERENCES Adelman, N., Donnelly, M. B., Dove, T., Tiffany Morales, J., Wayne, A., & Zucker, A. (2002). use of techno logy. Retrieved from SRI International http://policyweb.sri.com/cep/publications/SRI_PD_Lit_Review_2002.pdf Agresti, A., (2007). An Introduction to Categorical Data An alysis, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (2009) Statistical methods for the social sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. American Statistical Association (1997). What are focus groups? Alexandria, VA: Au thor. Barnard, C. I. (1938) The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C. & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large scale research study on technology in K 12 schools: Technology integration as it rel ates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (4) 489 507. happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13 ( 4) 519 546. Becker, H. J. (2001 April ). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the annual m ee ting of the American Educational Research Association. Berger, J. (2000) Does top down standards based reform work? A review of th e status of statewide standards based reform. NASSP Bulletin, 84 (612) 57 65. Burns, K. & Polman, J. (2006) The impact of ubiquitous computing in the Internet Age: How middle school teachers integrated wireless laptops in the initial stages of implementat ion. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 14 (2) 363 385. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Standards based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance based reform in education (p. 99 127). Wash ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. K. D. Wood and W. E. Blanton (Ed s .), Literacy Instruction for Adolescents (p p 442 471 ). New York, NY: Guilford. Creswel l, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks. S age

PAGE 113

113 Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. A merican Educational Research Journal, 38 (4) 813 834. Darling Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Department of Education, Office of Planning, E valuation, and Policy Developmen t, Policy Program Studies Service. ( 2009 ). Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through T echnology Program: Final Report. Wash ington, DC: Author Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys the Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. E journal of EdTech, Retrieved from Smart Brief on EdTech : http://www.smartbrief.com/servlet/ArchiveServlet?issueid=1CBF3F55 0FA2 4A7D 82F2 26EB52D36F30&lmid=archives Elmore, R. F. (1990). On changing the structure of public schools. In R. F. Elmore & Associates (Eds.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. (p p 1 28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Franklin, C. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers use of computers. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 15 (2) 267 293. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational Research An Introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009 ). Educational research competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Gelman, A. & Hill, J. (2010). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models, doi:10.1017/CB09 780511790942.031 Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the classroom. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50 (2) 63 76. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). U. S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010 040). National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Hsu, Y. S ., Wu, H. K, & Hwang, F. K. (2007). Factors influencing junior high school te computer based instructional practices regarding their instructional evolution stages. Educational Technology & Society 10 (4), 118 130.

PAGE 114

114 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C§ 1400 et seq (2004). Retrieved from U. S. Departm ent of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Website : http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html Inan, F. A. & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factor s affecting technology integration in K 12 classrooms: A Path Model. Education Technology research Development, 58, 137 154. International Reading Association (2009). New literacies and 21 st Century technologies: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Retrieved from the International Reading Association www.reading.org International Soci ety for Technology in Education. (2008). The ISTE NETS and performance indicators for teachers (NETS*T) Retr ieved from www.iste.org Internet World Stats Usage and Population Statistics (2010). Internet Usage Statistics for the Americas and the World. Retrieved from Internet World Stats http://www.Internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm Jeffs, T., Morrison, W. F., Messenheimer, T., Rizza, M. G., & Banister, S. (2003). A retrospective analysis of technological advances in special education. Computers in Schools, 20( 1 ), 129 152. Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, TX : The New Media Consortium. Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis New York, NY: Wiley. Lawrence, P. R. & Lo rsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. lish t wide laptop technology initiative. Teachers College Record, 108 (6) 1055 1079. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: S age National Governors Association Center for Best Practi ces, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core Standards About the Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C. Neiderhauser, D. S. & Lindstrom, D. L. (2006). Addressing the NETS for students through c onstructivist technology use in K 12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34 (1) 91 128

PAGE 115

115 Niederhauser, D. S., Lindstrom, D. L., & Strobel, J. (2007). Evidence of NETS*S in K 12 classrooms: Implica tions for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15 (4) 438 512. Niederhauser, D. S. educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15 31. Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Ogawa, R. T. & Bossert, S. T. (1995) Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Qua rterly, 31, 224 243. doi:10.1177/0013161X95031002004 Ogawa, R.T., Crowson, R.L., & Goldring, E. B. (1999). Enduring dile m mas of school organizations. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (p. 277 298). San Fr ancisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Ogawa, R.T., Sandholtz, J. H., Martinez Flores, M., & Scribner, S.P. (2003). The substantive and based curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (1) 147 176. Ottenbreit L eftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J. & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55, 1321 1335. Pew Research Center (2010). Mille n nials confide nt conn ected open to change. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1501/millennials Policy and Program Studies Service. (2003). Federal Funding for Educational Technology and How it Is Use d in the Classroom: A Summary of Findings from the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary. Project Tomorrow. (2011 ) : Enabled, engaged, empowere d How Retrieved from Project Tomorrow: http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/speakup_reports.html Project Tomorrow. (201 0). Creating our future: Students speak up about their vision for 21 st Century Learning. Retrieved from Project Tomorrow http://www.tomorrow.org/ speakup/speakup_reports.html Redmann, D. H. & Kotrlik, J. W. (2008). A trend study: Technology adoption in the teaching and learning process by secondary business teachers, Delta Pi Epsilon, 50 (2) 77 89. Renolds, A. P., Richards, G., DeLaInglesia, B., & Rayward Smith, V. J. (2006 ). Clustering r ules: A comparis on of Partitioning and Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms, Journal of Mathematical Modeling and Algorithms, 5, 475 504.

PAGE 116

11 6 Rideout, V. J., Foeher, U. G. & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8 to 18 year olds Kaiser Fa mily Foundation Rowan, B. (1990) Applying conceptions of teaching to organizational reform. In R. F. Elmore & Associates (Eds.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. (p p 31 58). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Scott, W.R. ( 1981). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Seels, B. B. & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications a nd Technology. Selfe, R. J. & Selfe, C. L. (2008). Convince me! Valuing multimodal literacies and composing public service announcements. Theory Into Practice, 47, 83 92. Smarkola, C. (2008). Developmentally responsive technology literacy use in education : Are teachers helping students meet grade level national technology standards? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38 (4) 387 409. Staples, A., Pugach, M. C. & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urb an elementary school s Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 37 (3) 285 311. StatSoft, Inc. (2012). Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft. WEB: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/ Swa nson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002) Standards based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP State Assessment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (1) 1 27. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000090.pdf U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2008). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Retri eved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_033_t1nasp Vannatta, R. A. & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher disposition as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal o f Research on Technology in Education, 36 (3) 253 271.

PAGE 117

117 Walker, T. (2012) Friend or Foe? Schools Still Struggle with Social Media. Retrieved from NEA Today : www.neatoday.org/2012/04/25/friend or foe still struggling with social media/ Willis, G. B. Research on the Cognitive and Decision Process in Surveys 1999 Meeting of the Am erican Statistical Association. Wilson, Z. (2010) Pew survey: Teens love Facebook, hate blogging, are always online, and Retrieved from FastCompany.com http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/Zachary wilson/and how/pew survey finds increase social media internet time decrease blogging te Wurster, P. (2009). What is your favorite ed tech tool? Learning & Leading with Technology, June/July 2009, 26 28. Zickuhr, K. (2011). Generations and gadgets. Retrieved from Pew Research Center : http://pewresearch.or g/pubs/1879/gadgets generations cell phones laptops desktop comupter

PAGE 118

118 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mary Anne Steinberg was born and raised in Westbury, New York. Mary Anne began attending the University o f Florida in 1985 as a freshman. I n 1989 she earned a Bach elor of Arts in Educa tion, and in 1990 she earned a Master of Education degree. In 2012, she received her Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Florida. Mary Anne then taught for over ten years in Levy County, Florida as an elementary teacher at Joyc e Bullock Elementary School for three years. She then moved to the newly built Williston Elementary School where she taught fourth and fifth grades. In 1994 she co implemented the first full inclusion classroom in Levy County with Katherine Balius and Robi n Reiter. She later became the reading coach at Williston Elementary School. In 2000, Mary Anne left classroom teaching to work fo r the Area Center for Educational Enhancement (ACEE) funded through a grant from the Florida Department of Education. At ACEE Mary Anne worked with teachers and administrators in twenty one school districts in northe ast Florida providing professional development in reading, Language Arts, the Sunshine State Standards, and the FCAT. During the 2003 school year Mary Anne began w orking for another Florida Department of Education program, the Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resource System where she worked closely with special education teachers, parents, and administrators on ways to improve literacy education for students with s pecial needs. In 2008 Mary Anne returned to the University of Florida full time to pursue her Ph.D. in Special Education with a specialization in r eading. During her time at the University of Florida she concentrated her efforts in literacy for adolescents, working with adjudicated youths, and technology. Mary Anne married to Roger J. Ste inberg III in 1990, and they have two daughters, Victoria Rose and Sydney Noel.