teachers’ perceptions on the use of technology in the
TRANSCRIPT
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN
THE CLASSROOM TO TEACH STUDENTS
IDENTIFIED WITH DYSLEXIA
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
TEXAS WOMAN’S UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SCIENCES
COLLEGE OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
BY
MARIA FERNANDA BLACKBURN, M.Ed.
DENTON, TEXAS
MAY 2018
Copyright © 2018 by Maria Fernanda Blackburn
ii
DEDICATION
In 1997, I arrived in the USA as a second language learner. I had in mind one
aspiration: to become fluent in English. This ambition soon turned into obtaining one
degree. Without a doubt, this new goal was part of the perfect plan God had for my life
before time. This goal soon became the beginning of my journey as a student in a foreign
country. Today, I look back and can barely fathom the magnitude of what I have
accomplished. I can honestly say that I have exceeded my own expectations. However,
this goal could have not been possible to reach without the immeasurable support from
some extraordinary people. My immense gratitude and appreciation to my husband,
James Blackburn, and our children, Christopher, Juliana and Daniela. Thank you for
always believing in me and standing patiently by my side through this journey. You were
the driving force that made this accomplishment possible. Your exceptionality as dyslexic
individuals and all the challenges you have overcome as learners gave me the courage to
explore the world of dyslexia. I stepped into the unknown world of dyslexia just to
understand you better. All the years spent studying and all the hours spent researching
make this achievement so very worth it because, I am able to get a better glimpse of what
your daily lives entail! Every day I thank God for giving me each one of you and the life
we get to share. Thank you for being who you are. Love, mamá.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to gratefully acknowledge the many individuals who have
contributed to this dissertation. I would like to thank my committee chair Dr. Brigitte
Vittrup for guiding me through this process and keeping me motivated when giving up
was the easiest option. I would like to thank Dr. Lin Moore and Dr. Linda Ladd for their
insightful feedback and support. Having you as part of my dissertation committee was a
privilege. I am also thankful to the faculty at Texas Woman’s University, who
encouraged me to use different perspectives to see the field of child development and
education. To all my teacher colleagues and Principals who encouraged me to continue
working until the very last day. Thank you for your support, your interest in my
dissertation and your understanding through this journey. Finally, I would like to thank
my husband and children for their patience, thoughtfulness, and all the hours spent at the
university library with me while I completed my degree.
iv
ABSTRACT
MARIA FERNANDA BLACKBURN
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM TO TEACH STUDENTS
IDENTIFIED WITH DYSLEXIA
MAY 2018
For decades, the educational system has been concerned with school readiness
and the approaches educational institutions follow to ensure that students enter school
with the necessary skills to be successful. However, determining what school readiness
entails has been a controversial topic since the establishment of educational goals by the
national government (Fantuzzo & McWayne, 2002; Mashburn & Pianta, 2006; Pyle,
Bates, Greif, & Furlong, 2005). School readiness is a milestone that concerns both
parents and educators, and it affects academic planning in schools. Parents and teachers
are concerned with students’ abilities to master key areas such vocabulary, print
motivation, print awareness, letter knowledge (LK), phonological awareness (PA), and
rapid automatized naming (RAN). The three latter skills will translate into fluency,
accuracy, and effective comprehension which are key factors in school readiness (Norton
& Wolf, 2012). As early as five years of age, children at risk for dyslexia begin to
exhibit deficiencies in LK, PA and RAN. These students exhibit early signs of dyslexia
and correspondingly exhibit poor academic performance regardless of possessing high
cognitive ability (Pyle et al., 2005). The primary purpose of this quantitative research was
v
to study teachers’ perceptions of the role of technology in teaching students who have
been diagnosed as having dyslexia. This research also investigated the types of
technology teachers currently use in the classroom and the teachers’ perceptions on the
use of technology by students diagnosed as having dyslexia. This study explored what
type, if any, of technology is currently being used in the classroom and the teachers’
views on this instructional approach. An online survey was used to gather the pertinent
data and to document teachers’ perceptions on the role of technology in teaching students
with dyslexia once the corresponding professionals have confirmed the diagnosis.
The findings of this study generated new awareness about teachers’ perspective
on the use of technology to teach these students. This study also generated understanding
about the type of (AT) available to promote academic advancement for students with
dyslexia in the classroom. Additionally, this research provided information regarding the
benefits students with dyslexia obtain from the use of AT as a teaching and learning tool.
This information may promote the incorporation of technology in the curriculum and
lesson planning for these students.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... ix
Chapters
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Rationale of Study............................................................................................ 4 Research Questions .................................................................................. 4 Theoretical Perspective .................................................................................... 5 Definition of Terms.......................................................................................... 8 Delimitations .................................................................................................... 9 Summary .......................................................................................................... 9
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................... 10
Dyslexia as a Learning Disability .................................................................. 10 Technology Use in the Classroom as a Teaching Tool.................................. 17 Teachers’ Perspectives on the use of Technology as a Teaching Tool .......... 23 Assistive Technology and its Influence on Teaching Students with Disabilities ..................................................................................................... 26 Teachers’ Perceptions of Students with Dyslexia .......................................... 33 Summary ........................................................................................................ 35
vii
III. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 36
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 36 Participants ....................................................................................................... 37 Recruitment ................................................................................................. 37 Sample......................................................................................................... 38 Instrumentation ................................................................................................ 40 Teacher Questionnaire ................................................................................ 40 Procedure ......................................................................................................... 41 Summary .......................................................................................................... 42 IV. RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 43
Preliminary Analyses ....................................................................................... 44 Computation of Variable Subscales ............................................................ 44 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................ 46 Staff Development ...................................................................................... 46 Technology Expertise ................................................................................. 46 Dyslexia Knowledge ................................................................................... 46 Primary Analysis .............................................................................................. 47 Teachers’ Perceptions of Benefits of the use of Technology by Non-Dyslexic Students ............................................................................... 47 Teachers’ Perceptions of AT Benefits Based on Training History and Experience with Students with Dyslexia .................................................... 48 Types of Technology Being used in the Classroom ................................... 48 Teachers’ Willingness to Allow Students with Dyslexia to Utilize Technology ................................................................................................. 49 Teachers’ Perceptions of Their own Ability to Implement Technology .... 50 Summary .......................................................................................................... 51 V. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 52
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 56 Directions for Future Research ....................................................................... 57 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 59 Summary ......................................................................................................... 60
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 62
viii
APPENDICES
A. Survey .................................................................................................................. 78 B. E-mail to School Principals ................................................................................. 88 C. E-mail to Teacher ................................................................................................. 90 D. Informed Consent Form ....................................................................................... 92 E. Contact Information Form for Incentive Participation ........................................ 96
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Frequencies and Percentages of Years of Teaching Experience ................... 39
2. Frequencies and Percentages of Current Teaching Position .......................... 39
3. Frequencies and Percentages of Educators Age ............................................ 40
4. Scales Reliability ........................................................................................... 44
5. Samples of Dyslexia Definitions Provided by Participants ........................... 47
6. Frequencies and Percentages of AT Utilized in the Classroom to Teach Students Identified as Having Dyslexia ......................................................... 49
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
For many decades, the educational system has been concerned with school
readiness and the different approaches educational institutions must follow to ensure that
students enter school with the necessary abilities and skills to be successful in the
academic setting. However, determining what school readiness entails has become a
controversial topic since the establishment of educational goals by the national and state
government (Fantuzzo & McWayne, 2002; Mashburn & Pianta, 2006; Pyle, Bates, Greif,
& Furlong, 2005).
School readiness is a milestone that concerns both parents and educators, and it
has become the center of academic planning in schools. Parents and teachers are
concerned with their students’ abilities to master key areas of school readiness (Texas
Education Agency, 2007). These areas encompass not only socio-emotional skills but
also cognitive abilities. Some of the cognitive abilities that receive most of the attention
are pre-reading skills, which include six essential literacy skills required for children to
become good readers. These skills include vocabulary, print motivation, print awareness,
letter knowledge (LK), phonological awareness (PA), and rapid automatized naming
RAN). The three latter skills will translate into fluency, accuracy and effective
comprehension which are key factors in school readiness (Norton & Wolf, 2012).
2
As early as five years of age, children who are at risk for dyslexia begin to exhibit
deficiencies in LK, PA and RAN. Students who exhibit early signs of dyslexia
correspondingly exhibit poor academic performance regardless of possessing high
cognitive ability (Pyle et al., 2005). Even though these academic skills are considered to
be the foundation of academic success, many children in early grades lack the ability to
master them as effectively as others due to unexplained difficulty in reading, particularly
in the area of phonological processing (Temple et al., 2003). Temple et al. found that
individuals diagnosed with dyslexia show a neural deficit during phonological
processing. These individuals showed decreased activity of the left temporo-parietal
cortex during activities that required phonological processing.
Neuroimaging methods have been employed to identify major factors related to
the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia (Kovelman et al., 2012). First, neuroimaging
methods have been utilized to measure the correlation between brain activity and LK, PA
and RAN. The results of resonance imaging have confirmed that a discrepancy is evident
in brain activity patterns and LK, PA and RAN between the brains of typically
developing children and those children who are at risk of developing dyslexia. Second,
results of neuroimaging of the brain of dyslexic individuals before and after remediation
sessions showed visual changes in brain function. These changes included increased
activity in the language areas of left hemisphere and other brain areas. This activity in the
brain of students with dyslexia, after remediation, was very close to the brain activity that
is present in the brain of students who are not at risk of developing dyslexia (Temple et
al., 2003).
3
The results of studies using neuroimaging and other studies have encouraged
researchers to recommend early identification of dyslexia and early placement in a
remediation program (Goswami, 2008; Kovelman et al., 2012). These actions will
provide opportunities for students with dyslexia to acquire skills and to develop reading
and spelling strategies to master reading, spelling and phonological awareness
successfully. It has been stated that failure to identify and remediate dyslexia in a timely
manner will result in the development of feelings of dissatisfaction among these students
as a result of poor academic performance (Gazzard, 2010).
Additionally, along with early identification and placement in a remediation
program, researchers have recommended the use of technology to effectively teach
students with dyslexia (Anderson-Inman and Horney, 2007; Beacham, 2002; Boles,
2011; Maldonado and Morgan, 2010). There is a large body of research that indicates that
the use of technology in the classroom could make academic experiences more positive
for students with dyslexia (Beacham, 2002; Maldonado and Morgan, 2010). The use of
technology employs several senses with the intention of achieving improved
comprehension of the information presented. Technology has been shown to improve
learning by using computers and other assistive technology without hindering other types
of learning (Anderson-Inman and Horney, 2007; Boles, 2011). The use of technology to
teach students with dyslexia not only involves different parts of the brain which makes
learning more effective for these students, but it also addresses the fact that today’s
learners think and process information essentially in a different manner than their
precursors (Prensky, 2001).
4
Rationale of the Study
The primary purpose of this research was to study the perception of teachers on
the role of technology in teaching students who have been diagnosed as having dyslexia.
This research will also investigate the types of technology teachers are currently using in
the classroom and the teachers’ perspectives on the benefits of AT for students identified
as dyslexic. The main purpose of this study will be to explore what type, if any, of
technology is currently being used in classrooms and the teachers’ views on this
instructional approach.
Research Questions
To fulfill the purpose of this study, the following research questions will be
explored:
1. Are there differences between teachers’ perceptions of academic benefits of the
use of technology by non-dyslexic students and students with dyslexia?
2. Are there differences between teachers’ perceptions of the use of Assistive
Technology by students with dyslexia based on training received and previous
experiences teaching these students?
3. What types of technology are teachers currently using with students with
dyslexia?
4. What are teachers’ perceptions of allowing students with dyslexia to utilize
technology in the classroom on a regular basis?
5
5. What are teachers’ perceptions of their own ability to implement technology to
teach students with dyslexia?
Theoretical Perspective
The theoretical perspective that guided this study was Bandura’s social learning
theory (1976). Bandura’s theory was used as a framework to understand the functions and
perspectives of the use of technology to teach students with dyslexia in the academic
process. Technology is widely used for multiple social purposes, and it could also be an
effective learning tool in the classroom for students with learning disabilities (LDs).
Several theories, such as behaviorist learning theories of classical conditioning
and operant conditioning, have been developed to explain why individuals choose to
behave the way they do. Rather than assuming that behaviors are originated by inner
forces within a person, Bandura (1976) worked with the principle that learning is the
result of direct experiences or the result of observation of others’ behaviors. New patterns
of behavior can be developed through one’s experiences or through observation of others.
Once the results of imitation have been favorable and proven to be effective, a new
behavior is adopted. Bandura (1976) defined social learning theory as individual learning
and collection of information through three principles: imitation, observation, and
modeling. Observational learning is an important idea introduced by Bandura to add to
the behaviorist learning theories of classical conditioning and operant conditioning.
Observational learning refers to changes in behavior as a result of environmental
influences; specifically, observing models and imitating their behavior. The individuals
serving as models can be parents, teachers, or peers. Children pay attention to these
6
people and encode their behavior. Once children feel confidents enough, they may
imitate their behavior.
The implementation of technology in the classroom provides an opportunity for
children to observe other students and teachers using technology to learn and accomplish
various goals. This implementation in the classroom promotes an environmental ideal for
social learning and enriches the interactions between students and teachers (Edyburn,
2006). Teachers who are willing to utilize technology in the classroom become models of
effective use of technology to demonstrate knowledge and acquire new skills. With
modeling being an indispensable component of social learning theory, students could be
drawn to choose this model as an effective behavior through observation and feedback.
The use of technology by students with LDs provides interventions that attempt to find to
ways to counterweigh poor skills by making tasks more accessible (The International
Dyslexia Association, 2010). Technology is no longer seen by students as a mere tool but
rather as a foundation to life and education. Therefore, teachers should regard technology
as a crucial part of learning (Prensky, 2013).
Bandura (1976) also referred to motivation as a key element to learning. The use
of technology as a teaching tool provides motivation to learn because technology has
become the solution to handle a completely new context (Prensky, 2013). Once teachers
and students see the progress of their own learning, they are motivated to stay on task, put
forth greater effort, and continue to use technology to learn.
The use of technology as a teaching and learning tool has been recommended for
decades (Edyburn, 2000). However, modeling is essential to help students with dyslexia
7
understand its effectiveness and how it provides a solution to complex academic tasks
such as reading, spelling, and writing (Forgrave, 2002). Technology enhances
individuals’ competences in all domains (Prensky, 2013) and aids students in the
expansion of personal ways of learning to master critical everyday skills. Once these
skills have been mastered, students acquire a higher sense of self-efficacy (Bandura,
1976). For students with dyslexia, the development of academic self-efficacy is
important. The academic struggles of children with dyslexia can lead to feelings of
inadequacy, isolation, and disappointment (Glazzard, 2010), but inspiring self-efficacy by
enabling these students to accomplish academic tasks through the use of technology may
lessen these negative feelings.
Bandura (1982) similarly stated that students’ self-efficacy is relevant to teachers’
self-efficacy. Teachers’ self-efficacy is viewed as an important factor that influences the
use of technology to the degree that it fosters both the embracing of new behaviors and its
maintenance. Teachers’ self-efficacy has a great influence on activities, effort and
persistence with students. Instructional self-efficacy differs from personal self-efficacy
in that instructional self-efficacy is related to the teachers’ expected outcome in the
classroom not to the personal effort put into completing a task (Bandura, 1994). Teachers
with a high sense of self-efficacy are enthusiastic about planning activities that are
challenging, and they become more persistent in helping struggling students and re-
teaching content that has been previously presented in class to ensure understanding. This
effort from teachers promote student’s achievement and teacher commitment (Chan, Lau,
Lim & Hogan, 2008). Teachers with high instructional self-efficacy are more likely to
8
create a positive classroom environment, support student input, and address students’
academic needs (Bandura, 1994).
Another construct described by Bandura (1978) in his social learning theory is
reciprocal determinism. This construct determinism is defined as the influence personal
factors and the environment have on an individual’s behavior. A person’s actions are not
unidirectional but rather bidirectional. In other words, an individual’s behavior can be
influenced by the outcomes perceived, as much as the individual can influence the
environment. Therefore, teachers’ perceptions and the school environment affect
teachers’ behaviors. For example, a teacher who perceives technology to be beneficial in
the teaching of students will be more likely to implement it in the classroom. Then when
the teacher observes positive results from the use of technology, he or she will be more
likely to continue its use. However, this feedback loop could potentially be interrupted by
the teacher’s lack of self-efficacy in the ability to implement various technological tools.
For example, a teacher may perceive technology to be potentially beneficial but at the
same time lacks confident in his or her own ability to use and implement technology in
the classroom. This could then lead the teacher to have a less positive evaluation of
technology and thus lead to lack of implementation.
Definitions of Terms
Dyslexia: Specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is
characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor
spelling and decoding abilities (Office of Special Education Programs, 2014).
9
Student identified as having dyslexia: A student who demonstrates a pattern of
evidence for dyslexia after he/she has undergone formal and non-formal assessment
conducted by a trained professional (Office of Special Education Programs, 2014).
Assistive Technology: Any item, piece of equipment, or product system that is
utilized to expand, maintain, and/or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a
disability.
Delimitations
Several factors delimited this study and affected the ability to generalize from the
results yielded. These factors are:
1. The participants were teachers of students in grades 2nd to 6th from schools
located in Texas.
2. The participants were teachers of students whose native language is English.
3. The data was collected using only English language surveys.
Summary
This chapter introduced the purpose of the study, the main research questions, and
the theoretical framework for the study. Specifically, this study is an investigation of
teachers’ perceptions of the use of technology to teach students who have been diagnosed
as dyslexic. Bandura’s social learning theory (1976) was used as a framework, including
the concepts of observational learning, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism.
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Dyslexia as a Learning Disability
The United States Department of Education (2016) has reported that as of 2013,
there were more than six million public school students who had been identified as
having a learning disability. This growing number of students with exceptional academic
needs has prompted a national need to find more effective ways to teach and promote
academic skills among these learners. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(EAHCA) of 1975 was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), which identifies specific categories of disabilities under which children may be
eligible for special education and related services. The EAHCA requires all public
schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with
physical and mental disabilities.
In 1990, Congress enacted the IDEA to ensure that children identified with
disabilities have the opportunity to receive free and appropriate public education.
Amendments have been passed by Congress, and the final regulations for school-aged
children were published in 2006 (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). These
amendments posited that adaptations, accommodations, and modifications must be
individualized for students with disabilities to tend to academic and personal needs.
Before the implementation of EAHCA and IDEA, many children were denied
11
access to education and opportunities to learn. Since 1975, neighborhood schools have
moved from paying little or no attention to the special needs of individuals with
disabilities to accommodating these individuals’ basic needs and eventually designing
entire programs and services for children with disabilities and their families (Office of
Special Education Programs, 2014).
Today, highly qualified teachers and the families of children with disabilities are
considered important partners in meeting the needs of children with disabilities.
Professionals specializing in early childhood and special education are being trained with
IDEA support (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). These professionals include an
array of individuals who are trained to work with children with specific and unique
disabilities and their families. The IDEA defines a child with a disability as a child with
mental retardation, hearing, speech or language impairment, visual impairment, serious
emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury or other
health impairments or a specific learning disability (Knoblauch & Sorenson, 1998; Office
of Special Education Programs, 2014). A learning disability is a disorder in one or more
of the basic psychological processes involved in using language in a spoken or written
manner. These types of disorders interfere with the ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell or complete mathematical computations (Office of Special Education
Programs, 2014).
A significant event in the field of dyslexia took place in February 2016 when
President Barrack Obama signed the Research Excellence and Advancements for
Dyslexia (READ) Act. The READ Act of 2016 supports further research to better
12
understand dyslexia. This bill requires the Presidential budget to include the Research in
Disabilities Education program of the National Science Foundation (NSF). It was
reported that an estimated budget of $2.5 million would be designated for the research of
dyslexia and implementation of new remediation programs (Smith, 2016). These funds
will be utilized to promote early identification of dyslexia, dyslexia training for teachers,
and better curriculum and tools for children with dyslexia. The passing of the READ Act
was the result of many years of research and collaboration of many professional groups
such as the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) and the Learning
Disabilities Association of America (Smith, 2016).
Rudolf Berlin originally coined the term dyslexia in 1887 in an effort to describe
students who presented difficulties handling letters and their corresponding sounds
(Rathore et al., 2010). This disorder is characterized by clusters of cells located on top of
the surface of the cerebral cortex rather than underneath. These cells ought to have
moved to the surface of the brain while the fetus was developing but this transition was
disrupted. Because of these developmental malformations in the brain, individuals
experience problems with rapid processing, which ultimately affects reading. Dyslexia is
a disorder that interferes with the ability to read, write and spell with accuracy. Dyslexia
has been defined as reading achievement that falls substantially below the chronological
age of the individual and does not align with the measured intelligence and age
appropriate education (British Dyslexia Association, 1998).
According to International the Dyslexia Association (2010), dyslexia is a complex
disorder that encompasses a combination of abilities and difficulties that affect the
13
learning process in one or more academic areas. Individuals identified as dyslexic
experience difficulties learning to read, hearing individual sounds in words, analyzing
words, and blending sounds to create words. This language-based learning disability
typically results from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often
unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and effective classroom instruction.
Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced
reading experience that can hinder growth of vocabulary (International Dyslexia
Association, 2010). Although this disorder does not manifest in the same manner in all
individuals, difficulties are common in the same areas. Not all dyslexic individuals
exhibit identical patterns but rather deal with a range of problems. Dyslexia starts to
manifest itself during the preschool and kindergarten years and, in some cases, earlier.
Some of the symptoms of dyslexia during preschool and kindergarten might include
delayed speech, difficulty naming objects used on a daily basis, and difficulty articulating
R’s, L’s, M’s, and N’s (Rathore et al., 2010). Other symptoms of dyslexia that are present
beyond the early school years include labored handwriting, poor quality of written work,
memorizing non-meaningful facts, and confusion with directionality.
For decades, dyslexia has been regarded as a specific learning disability that is
neurological in origin. Researchers who have conducted brain imaging studies have
demonstrated that children with dyslexia show selective under activation of key
phonological areas of the brain (Goswami, 2008). Neuroscientists demonstrated that
targeted phonology-based interventions improve levels of activation in these areas,
balancing neural activity. As a result of this research-based evidence, many remediation
14
programs and instructional approaches have been developed for children with dyslexia,
but the most effective approaches across languages appear to be those offering intensive
phonological interventions (Shaywitz et al., 2004).
The diagnosis of dyslexia is a task that includes non-formal and formal
assessment conducted by trained personnel. The assessment of dyslexia incorporates a set
of individualized assessments that include a comprehensive physical examination
accompanied by a series of evaluations that review the individual’s behavior patterns,
general intellectual ability, oral language skills, phonological processing, visual
perception, and reading comprehension as well as social and emotional needs (Rathore et
al., 2010). During the evaluation process, evaluators utilize test instruments and other
evaluation materials that have been validated for the specific purpose (Texas Education
Agency, 2014). Identification and prompt placement in a remediation setting leads to
students acquiring skills that will allow them to master reading, spelling and phonics
successfully. Failure to identify and remediate dyslexia in a timely manner will lead to
the development of feelings of dissatisfaction about not being able to complete work in
class. Because of these feelings, students feel inadequate, disappointed or isolated
(Glazzard, 2010). The effects of dyslexia, due to its nature, are primarily reflected in
academic achievement. Students’ lack of adequate academic progress, despite high
cognitive abilities, is one of the initial concerns that trigger the start of the identification
process.
However, academic progress is not the only area affected by dyslexia. Dyslexia
also affects the social and emotional development and stability, but these areas are often
15
unnoticed (Ryan, 1992; Terras, Thompson, & Minis, 2009). Alexander-Passe’s (2006)
study of 19 teenagers diagnosed with dyslexia corroborated what research revealed in the
1980s that the inconsistencies of dyslexia instigate biological changes that affect social
and emotional development of individuals. Specifically, he investigated how these
teenagers coped with issues related to self-esteem and depression. He found that dyslexic
males and females demonstrated low general and academic self-esteem. Females reported
a lower self-esteem in both categories compared to males. It was concluded that in
addition to counseling, these students need particular attention from teachers in order to
feel academically successful.
The levels of frustration experienced by dyslexic students start to amount when
there is a realization that their reading skills are not at the same level as the reading skills
of their peers who are in their same grade, are the same age, and share similar cognitive
abilities or learning styles (Long, MacBlain, & MacBlain, 2007). In addition, the
difference in overall class performance compared to the performance of a student with
dyslexia can cause a great amount of anxiety for them and leads to bullying by peers,
teasing, and the development of feelings of exclusion for students with dyslexia. The
anxiety caused by the diagnosis and the struggles induces the students to display timid
behavior, avoid challenging situations and constantly solicit help and encouragement
(Glazzard, 2010). Likewise, a dyslexia diagnosis can foster negative attitudes towards
learning, affect feelings about being an effective learner, and truncate the process of
overcoming problems (Burden & Burdett, 2005).
16
Social interaction is another area affected by dyslexia. In many cases, dyslexic
pupils are socially immature in comparison with their peers and tend to develop poor self-
image (Ryan, 1992). Similarly, they have difficulty understanding social cues and body
language; therefore, their social interactions might seem out of place and bizarre. Social
situations that cause individuals diagnosed with dyslexia to become frightened are also
grounds for avoidance, which tend to be interpreted as laziness and apathy (Alexander-
Passe, 2006).
Another aspect of social development that is disturbed by dyslexia is the
individual’s ability to remember the sequence of events (Long et al., 2007). Individuals
with dyslexia not only struggle to remember the sequence of letters in a word but also the
sequence of events related to one situation. This fact results in two major consequences.
One, it takes students with dyslexia longer to learn from their mistakes, which can make
them appear to be stubborn or unruly. And two, when recalling events, these students
could appear to be deceitful because they relay different events every time they retell an
account. This circumstance may lead parents, teachers and professionals to believe that
the student is a pathological liar.
Overall, the many inconsistencies of dyslexia can cause disruption in a child’s life
due to the variations in abilities. Strengths and weaknesses in people with dyslexia are
significantly exaggerated, causing individuals to experience a fluctuation of feelings
(Ryan, 1992). Students with dyslexia sometimes go from being able to accomplish a task
that is far beyond the ability of peers their same age to being confronted with a simpler
task they are not able to achieve. Humphrey (2003) asserted that in order to teach
17
students with dyslexia to manage their diagnosis, it is imperative to help them develop a
comprehensive understanding of the disability. Only in this way will individuals with
dyslexia be able to predict success and failure and adapt to the circumstances
accordingly, given that self-development is the result of a social learning activity. Not
being able to develop a strong sense of self will result in children with emotional, social,
and academic deficits (Humphrey, 2003). Moreover, understanding of one’s disability
and struggle as a person with dyslexia is often associated with the development of strong
self-esteem and successful adult psychosocial functioning. “Children who perceive
greater parental understanding, or who perceive greater social support from parents,
teachers and peers have a more positive self-concept” (Terras et al., 2009, p. 307).
Technology Use in the Classroom as a Teaching Tool
For several decades, the use of information and communication technologies
(ICT) has affected our society in major ways. National and international statistics have
reported that schools in many countries around the world are progressively becoming
better equipped with technological devices and online connectivity (Caraballo, 2012;
Wood, Mueller, Willoughby, Specht, & Deyoung, 2005). The use of technology as a
teaching tool has been reported by many researchers to be a useful tool that enhances
learning at school, increases on-task behavior, and promotes high levels of engagement
with adequate implementation and instructor support (Prensky, 2001). Churchill and
Churchill (2008) reported that computers and other technologies benefit students by
providing access to a wide variety of applications and formats such as audio, video, and
Internet access. Additionally, these authors suggest that connectivity tools can be used to
18
participate in real-life discussions, to document using photos and images, to represent
ideas using presentation applications, and to use analytical tool such as advanced graphic
calculators.
School curricula in the United States and many other countries emphasize the
significance of preparing students to become technologically literate in order to be
productive in a technologically mediated society (Chikasanda, Williams, & Jones, 2013).
Implementing a curriculum that is geared toward the mastery of technology skills is a
necessary step that must be accompanied by the support of the classroom teacher. Pucket
and O’Bannon (2012) affirmed that much of the technology that is available today can be
utilized to provide support for all learners if used effectively and if accessible to all
students. The use of technology in the classroom not only provides access to high level
language and literacy skills, but it is a tool that provides continuous learning
opportunities both at school and at home due to its mobility.
Edyburn (2006) reported that even though the availability of technology has
increased in educational settings, many considerations need to be made in order to
determine if it is being utilized effectively. Matching the right technological tool to the
educational needs of students becomes a key part in the process of employing technology
as an instructional instrument. Technology has been utilized in the classroom as a
supplemental tool to promote various tasks that include time management, note taking,
research, exam preparation and written assignments and not just to provide support for
students with disabilities (Edyburn, 2006). Students with dyslexia who are only allowed
to rely only on improving their reading ability will not be successful unless they can also
19
use compensatory measures such as a training program and assistive technology (AT)
(Fälth & Svensson, 2015). An example of a compensatory measure is when the student is
provided the opportunity to listen to a taped version of the book instead of reading the
printed version. This measure allows the student to participate effectively rather than
struggle with a reading difficulty (Caraballo, 2012).
The use of technology in today’s classrooms supports the learning style of today’s
digital natives. Digital natives are defined as children who are raised in a digital
environment overloaded by media (Prensky, 2001). Prensky stated that digital natives are
used to obtaining information in a faster way than it is presented during a traditional
lecture and would rather connect with graphics than text. Additionally, digital natives like
to parallel-process, multitask, network and consider assignments “games” rather than
work, and all this can be accomplished with the use of technological gadgets. Each
generation has its own technology; therefore, it is imperative that students are presented
with academic activities that reflect the wide and ever-expanding variety of technological
tools to engage them in the learning process (Boles, 2011). Technology motivates leaners
and creates sustained periods of attention that result in mastery of a set of skills (Gee,
2003).
Levin and Wadmany (2006) reported that even though information and
communication technologies have affected all aspects of our society for several decades,
the educational system has remained unchanged for many, and the integration of
technology into teaching has not been widely implemented. This continues to be the case
as reported by Kopcha (2012) and Jones (2017). In his study, Kopcha reported that the
20
lack of use of technology in the classroom is likely to be the result of teachers’ negative
attitudes towards it. Teachers’ negativity has resulted from the fact that integrating
technology requires additional planning, teaching, and classroom management practices
that are still new to many teachers. Teachers often perceive technology as a burden on
their time because it interrupts instruction.
Similarly, Jones (2017) reported that even though teachers identified the benefits
of technology implementation in the classroom, they were often reluctant to implement.
Teachers feared that technology integration could take the place of human interaction and
finding a balance is often a complex task. Jones also reported that for the majority of the
time teachers superficially implement technology, as a temporary tool rather than a form
of teaching and learning, into their teaching even when the tools are readily available to
them and to the students. Teachers would rather maintain a teacher-centered (low
integration of technology) than a student-centered (high integration of technology)
classroom because the active role educators play in the use as a teaching tool is strongly
associated with their attitudes towards its use for educational purposes (Al-Zaidiyeen,
Mei, & Fook, 2010; Cuban 2001; Semple, 2000).
This preference is often aligned with the teacher’s teaching philosophy. For
example, if a teacher’s teaching philosophy is to transmit academic concepts through a
rigid and highly controlled pedagogy, the use of technology might not be this teacher’s
choice of classroom instruction. On the other hand, if a teacher’s teaching philosophy is
to use constructivist learning principles, the use of technology is aligned with the
pedagogy (Becker & Ravitz, 2001). Teachers’ practices are highly influenced by
21
teachers’ personal views and perspectives on effective teaching and learning in the
classroom. Teachers’ beliefs are a deciding factor in the implementation of new
instructional techniques. Teachers are more likely to adopt new technology if it is aligned
with their existing practices (Al-Zaidiyeen, 2010). For several decades, studies have
reported that teachers’ beliefs affect technology use in two ways: one, it becomes a filter
during lesson planning and making decisions about curriculum, and two, it limits the
implementation of new approaches and techniques that require technology.
Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012) confirmed
what Cuban (1990) and Fullan (1992) asserted from previous studies, that the request for
implementation of new technologies in the classroom does not consider the difficulties
teachers will have to face in regard to acquiring new skills to teach using technology and
changing their educational views. Jones and Jo (2004) reported that in order for new
technologies to be effectively implemented and integrated into the curriculum, a major
reform of teachers’ views, beliefs and practices must be implemented through
professional development, and this continues the be the case today. Kopcha (2012)
validated that professional development is a favorable way to prepare teachers to modify
the common barriers and improve the use of technology for instruction. Professional
development is considered the most effective mechanism that will help teachers reflect on
their own views, change teaching practices and continue to grow academically. Teachers
who lack understanding of technology will struggle to appreciate its importance and
hence become an impediment towards the implementation of technology.
22
Chikasanda et al. (2013) conducted a study that implemented a professional
development program specifically designed to change the teachers’ perceptions from
their traditional ways, enhance their knowledge of technology and improve pedagogical
practices. The results of this study showed that teachers’ practices were deeply tied to
their college training and reflected deep content knowledge but limited pedagogical
knowledge. Therefore, restructuring teacher education and professional development to
focus on content and pedagogy might result in teachers developing knowledge of
techniques, content, pedagogy, and self-efficacy for teaching. Furthermore, Chikasanda et
al. (2013) reported that this professional development resulted in teachers developing an
understanding of the critical role of pedagogy in students’ development of technological
literacy.
In addition, some studies found that the use of technology is an effective tool to
teach language and literacy in the classroom ((Peterson-Karlan, 2011; Ruffin, 2012).
Technology and video games provide valuable experiences for students since they
incorporate an entire set of fundamental phonological principals that are applicable in
many settings (Gee, 2003). Certain types of video games and computer programs employ
cognitive science that is supported by research to develop games and activities which
makes them a valuable tool for teaching. Gee also supported the idea that families,
educators and workplaces could benefit from the employment of technology to enhance
learning. Shaffer, Halverson, Squire, and Gee (2005) reported that young children, who
have been exposed to playing video games on topics that are advanced for their age, have
demonstrated a high level of involvement and interaction with other media, such as
23
websites and books, in order to connect and understand the games. Additionally, it was
reported that young learners demonstrated the ability to make connections between video
game topics and other video games as well as to establish connections with current
cultural trends. Shaffer et al. (2005) argued that video games make a powerful teaching
and learning tool because they offer content that is personally meaningful, experiential,
social and epistemological.
Certain types of video games offer an environment that is grounded in learning
theories and is able to build educational experiences. The use of video games and other
technologies offers the learners an opportunity to think in a different way and undertake a
role that requires them to apply higher level thinking skills as well as greater content
knowledge (Prensky, 2006). Video games and computer-based applications can teach
students skills that are needed to be successful in the 21st century, including problem
solving, language and cognitive skills, strategic thinking, multitasking, and parallel
processing (Prensky, 2006).
Teachers’ Perspectives on the use of Technology as a Teaching Tool
Another crucial point about implementing technology in the classroom relates to
the fact that it is imperative to prepare students for the new digital literacies that are
continuously evolving (Morgan, 2011), and the support and leadership of teachers is
necessary. The constant input of teachers becomes a crucial part of this implementation
for the reason that they are the conduit between what school districts select as
technological tools for the classroom and the effective implementation and student use
(Bergen, 2002). Nonetheless, it has been stated that the existence of technological devices
24
and online connectivity in the classroom does not translate into the use of these devices
(Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Bergen, 2002; Jones, 2017).
The implementation of technology by teachers in the classroom is not an easy
transition but rather a complex process that involves a series of events. Hall and Hord
(2006) reported that teachers must understand a series of principles in order to be able to
go from traditional instruction to instruction that incorporates technology, which makes
this a very complex process for teachers, administrators, and school districts. These
principles include the understanding of various concepts such as process of change,
change as a learning process, school as the first step toward change, characteristics of
implementation, organization, the role of administrators, and interventions among others.
Likewise, Cuban (2001) reported that only four of 13 teachers who had access to
computer technology exhibited major modification to their teaching approaches to
accommodate the use of technology.
The potential barriers to the implementation of technologies in the classroom
range from equipment issues, technical difficulties, and malfunctions to differences in
attitudes and skills among educators (Wood et al., 2005). However, according to Hall and
Hord (2006), the major barrier is the shift teachers must undergo from being the experts
of instruction in a face-to-face traditional setting to becoming a facilitator of students’
learning and acting more in the role of a guide. Along with these drastic changes, the
rapid variations in computer technology and school initiatives make it even more
challenging to study the impact of these barriers over time. A longitudinal study found
25
that issues and barriers change over periods as brief as two years (Levin & Wadmany,
2006).
Recent research conducted by Tondeur et al. (2017) corroborates the findings of
the previously mentioned studies. Based on their study of various articles selected via
meta-aggregative approach developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The meta-
aggregative approach is a systematic process of extracting and synthesizing qualitative
data. This study focused on two main areas: teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and how these
beliefs are related to the use of technology in the classroom. As a result, they were able to
identify insights into how and why specific pedagogical beliefs and technology uses are
linked. This investigation allowed the researchers to conclude that the implementation of
technology in the classroom as a teaching tool is a process often interrupted by teachers’
personal believes. Other persistent obstacles include the lack of time, rigid schedules, and
examination requirements.
Similarly, Wood et al. (2005) conducted a mixed methods study that included 37
elementary and 17 secondary teachers from a mid-sized Canadian city. After the data
collected from a 60-minute focus group was analyzed, it was concluded that the
implementation of technology in the classroom was affected by the level of comfort
experienced by the teachers. Comfort with technology was the only significant predictor
of integration of technology in the classroom. These findings indicate that teachers’
levels of experience and comfort with technology are one of the most crucial aspects of
effective implementation.
26
On the other hand, an exploratory longitudinal study conducted by Levin (2008)
indicated that even though teachers’ levels of experience and comfort with technology
have an impact on the integration of technology in the classroom, these views can be
changed when teachers are exposed to a rich technology-based environment. This
qualitative research lasted three years during which teachers were exposed to a rich
technology-based environment that included computers, multimedia, and various
software applications. In addition, teachers participated in professional development
sessions under the guidance of training staff and observed student-teacher
demonstrations. The outcomes of this study showed that prior introduction to technology
and adequate support can modify the way teachers function, think and relate to
technology use in the classroom (Levin & Wadmany, 2008). Similarly, it was concluded
that exposure to technology, extensive teaching experience, and social support are
required in order to break down the barriers that limit technology implementation in the
classroom (Duhon, 2010). A study by Duhon (2010) found that teachers’ beliefs,
perceptions, and personal abilities with technology are crucial to the implementation and
use of nearly all types of technology. Additionally, Duhon stated that teachers are likely
to only implement technology into their teaching when it is highly aligned with their
beliefs.
Assistive Technology and its Influence on Teaching Students with Disabilities
In 1988, Congress established a program of grants to states to promote the
provision of technology-related assistance to individuals with disabilities known as the
Assistive Technology Act (ATA). The purpose of this law was to provide financial
27
support for states to develop educational programs that utilized assistive technology (AT)
in the education of children with disabilities (Bryant & Seay, 1998; Edyburn, 2000;
Forgrave, 2002).
AT is any piece of equipment or device that may be used by an individual with a
disability to perform specific tasks, improve functional capabilities, and develop more
independence. Congress argued that for some individuals with disabilities, AT is a
necessity that enables them to engage in or perform tasks and could significantly benefit,
in all major life activities, individuals of all ages with disabilities (Ruffin, 2012). The
main goal of this act was to assist individuals with disabilities and their families to obtain
AT devices and services. Afterwards, two main amendments to the IDEA were enacted.
In 1997, IDEA specified that a student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) must
consider the implementation of AT to meet the student’s needs, and in 2004 this same act
required school districts to provide AT support as part of classroom instruction if
determined by a student’s IEP (Forgrave, 2002). In an effort to guarantee the provisions
of AT and technological support at school and to maximize accessibility for children with
disabilities, federal and state funding were provided to promote the development and use
of technologies, including AT, to maximize access to and involvement in the general
education curriculum for children with disabilities (Bryant & Seay, 1998; Edyburn,
2000).
Clark (1983) and Kozma (1994) have been known for carrying the most widely
recognized debate about the effectiveness of the use of technology in learning. Clark
(1983) argued that technology merely affected learning since it is a novel approach, but it
28
did not affect students’ achievement. On the other hand, Kozma (1994) argued that
technology played a crucial role in students’ learning and affected the educational process
positively. This debate of more than three decades has been surpassed by overwhelming
development of technological applications in recent years (Cheung & Slavin, 2013).
Today, research continues to report similar findings related to the use of
technology as a teaching tool. Recent research has corroborated three important findings:
the use of technology and the Internet for educational purposes is progressively growing,
technology enhanced teaching is an effective strategy to improve student learning
because technology supplements traditional teaching, and lastly, even though active
student participation in a self-driven learning project helps students learn and retain more
than passively listening, lecturing continuous to be the most common methodology
utilized by teachers (Ness & Lin , 2015; Riva, Villani, Cipresso, & Gaggioli, 2016).
Hasselbring and Bausch (2005) indicated that AT is a powerful aid that helps
individuals with disabilities compensate for their deficiencies and promotes independence
to learn skills needed to gain self-sufficiency. Pucket and O’Bannon (2012) found that
when students had access to technology, their overall performance progressed. This
progress was the result of opportunities to interact with rich content material and to have
equal access to participation in school-based learning experiences as their peers during
effective instruction.
The uses of AT for students with disabilities are numerous and might include
visual mapping applications, word prediction, voice recognition, text-to-speech (TTS)
software, word processors, portable keyboards, and mini-computers (electronic
29
notebooks) or tablets. Studies conducted by Ortlieb, Sargent, and Moreland (2014) and
Pisha and O’Neill (2003) have concluded that the use of AT in reading is most effective
when used in combination with instruction in reading strategies and processes because it
strengthens the required skills good readers need to process information effectively. In
addition, studies have reported that digital reading resources promote reading
comprehension (Hasselbring & Bausch, 2005).
Ortlieb (2014) conducted a study with 58 fourth-grade students to determine if a
digital reading environment had a positive impact on their reading comprehension skills.
They looked at three different types of instruction: print-based text instruction, hybrid
instruction (print and digital) and digital-based text instruction and found that the students
who participated in the hybrid instruction significantly outperformed the students who
participated on the print-based instruction.
However, technology should never take the place of quality reading instruction,
teacher-corrected instruction and intervention, but should merely complement the
process. Additional areas that have been identified as key for the use of AT in the
classroom are fluency and comprehension (Hecker & Engstrom, 2005). For example, the
use of TTS applications allows the student to remove decoding barriers and focus on the
comprehension part. Furthermore, reading software programs that read text aloud give
the reader the opportunity to manipulate text, highlight it, regulate rate and voice, and
select writing choices. By letting the reader focus primarily on comprehension with no
barriers, the learner has the possibility to process information from the text and improve
comprehension. Correspondingly, the cognitive resources that were applied while reading
30
without the support of AT are now available to be used during higher-cognitive processes
such as making connections and inferencing (Forgrave, 2002).
AT has also been confirmed to be effective in writing instruction (Edyburn,
2013). The use of word processors in combination with editing instruction result in high
amounts and quality of revision and overall quality of writing. Word prediction and voice
recognition are similarly effective applications that create a path to quality writing
(Forgrave, 2002; Hecker & Engstrom, 2005). The use of speech-to-text allows students
with disabilities to put their ideas and thoughts in writing before they forget about them
while they work on slow typing or labored handwriting. Organizational skills and study
skills are two other areas that can be improved with the use of AT. By using AT to get
organized, students have the opportunity to use digital pictures to capture due dates,
homework assignments and other events rapidly and accurately (Forgrave, 2002).
The overarching goal for AT in the classroom is to teach students to become self-
sufficient and request the adequate support and technology tools independently (Peterson-
Karlan, 2011). In order to reach this goal, students must be educated about their own
disability as appropriate. Only then do students become self-sufficient enough to request
the right AT tool at the right time depending on the task that needs to be
completed. Even though extensive research regarding the use and benefits of AT as a
teaching tool has been conducted, it has been reported that teachers’ perspectives are
limited in this aspect. Lack of understanding of the effectiveness of AT as a teaching tool
adversely affects its implementation regardless of the availability of funds and
technology applications (Peterson-Karlan, 2011).
31
Researchers have focused on the ways in which people who have dyslexia can
improve their learning by using computers without hindering other types of learning
(Beacham, 2002). A large body of research promoting the implementation of multiple
media to improve learning for all learners, including those with dyslexia, has been
conducted. Puckett and O’Bannon (2012) indicated that a wide range of options in
technology can be a significant part of effective instruction and a relevant part of student
support. Much of the technology intended for instruction can be used in an assistive
manner to support all students, especially those with dyslexia.
The use of technology in the classroom has become a more frequent practice
among teachers and students with disabilities (Edyburn,2006). However, many teachers
have acknowledged that they are not familiar with available assistive technology (Ruffin,
2012). Often, technology is used as a remediation tool to close academic gaps and teach
skills that students with dyslexia have not mastered (Edyburn, 2006). On the contrary,
researchers have concluded that technology should be used as an accommodation that is
intended to reduce or even eliminate the effects of a student's disability and not to
remediate (Edyburn, 2006). O’Connell, Freed, and Rothberg (2010) reported that the use
of technology to teach students with dyslexia is effective if the proper combination of
input is utilized such as animation and narration accompanied by images. This
combination can increase the amount of material students with dyslexia can learn.
Furthermore, the use of technology to teach students with dyslexia can reduce the amount
of time students with dyslexia spend attempting to decode content and will free them to
become more engaged in learning.
32
The use of technology to teach students with dyslexia is only operational when it
effectively promotes student independent learning and shows that learners progressively
move away from parent or teacher assisted strategies. This independence will result in the
ability of students with dyslexia to access, interact with and apply information on their
own as they reach adulthood (Office of Special Education Programs, 2014). The use of
technology similarly benefits students’ academic achievement given the additional
opportunities to learn. Even though research has demonstrated that the use of technology
is an effective instructional tool, statistics show that only 25 to 35% of students with
disabilities have access to assistive technology (O’Connell et al., 2010). To increase the
incorporation of technology as an instructional tool, two major changes are needed. AT
has been utilized mostly to teach students with disabilities how to read because of the
national focus on reading; however, some researchers believe that AT could also be used
to teach writing (Peterson–Karlan, 2011). Teaching students with disabilities how to
write promotes learning, independence, and increased literacy levels. Regardless of their
disability, individuals who have been identified as having learning difficulties have
greater access to information and are able to communicate their ideas if they are capable
of writing (Wollak & Koppenhaver, 2011). The use of technology to teach writing
compensates for the difficulties experienced with spelling, poor handwriting and
language delays which are some of the characteristics of individuals with dyslexia
(Edyburn, 2000).
Another skill that can be taught while using technology is comprehension by
providing visual and auditory presentation, or bi-modal demonstration, of the information
33
(Stearns, 2012). Students with dyslexia have to work harder to spell, pronounce words
and read fluently, which compromises meaning and comprehension and thus causing
frustration. Technology removes factors that might limit academic success while reading
improves the ability to read for understanding. Technology can be used to assist
struggling students by adjusting skill deficits and supporting word recognition, word
meaning and overall comprehension with a multisensory experience (Stearns, 2012).
Teachers’ Perceptions of Students with Dyslexia
For more than 20 years, inclusion of learners with various disabilities, including
SLDs, in general education classrooms has been the focus of policymakers (Hornstra,
Denessen, Bakker,van den Bergh, & Voeten, 2010). The goals of inclusive classrooms
are to allow students with learning disabilities to be part of an educational environment
that is beneficial and does not isolate them from their nondisabled peers. Inclusive
classrooms apply to students with dyslexia as well. However, these goals might become
unattainable since the struggles are not as easy to identify as other learning difficulties.
Even though the academic, social and emotional success of all students depend on the
awareness and willingness of teachers to meet the needs of these students, dyslexia is
easy to overlook and not be addressed (Hornstra et al., 2010).
Although research on teachers’ knowledge about reading difficulties has
increased in the past decades, the study of teachers’ perceptions of dyslexia is very
limited. Researchers who have conducted studies over a period of nearly 30 years show
that the clear majority of teachers believe dyslexia is a condition caused by deficits in
visual perceptions (Washburn, Binks-Cantrell & Joshi, 2014). Singer (2015) reported that
34
children with dyslexia and other learning disabilities are at risk of being stigmatized
because of the label they receive once the diagnosis is acknowledged by the school.
Additionally, Shifrer (2013) concluded that both teachers and parents develop negative
views and low expectations for students with learning disabilities, causing these students
to acquire negative perceptions about their own educational abilities. This stigmatization
can lead to lower teacher expectations and possibly lower academic achievement due to
not addressing the limitation effectively in the classroom.
Researchers have found a small but significant correlation between teacher
expectations and academic abilities of students (Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1999; Patterson,
2007). Teachers’ judgments of student academic potential modify the nature of the
qualitative and quantitative interactions with students as well as the curricular and
instructional opportunities offered to students with dyslexia. In turn, different teacher-
student interactions and less curricular and instructional opportunities lower academic
achievement of students with dyslexia. Additionally, students with dyslexia have received
lower teacher ratings in writing and spelling when the teachers hold negative attitudes
towards the learning disability. Teachers’ attitudes toward dyslexia impact the time and
effort they are willing to invest in assisting these students improve on reading, writing,
and spelling (Hornstra et al., 2010). According to Gwernan and Burden (2010) teachers’
negative attitudes towards dyslexia limited the amount of opportunities students with
dyslexia received to answer questions and participate in class, as well as the amount of
constructive feedback provided during spelling and reading instruction. Teachers’
35
abilities in handling different forms of learning difficulties in the classroom were affected
by the knowledge and points of view towards those difficulties.
Even though there is limited research regarding teachers’ perspective and attitudes
towards dyslexia, Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt (2000) concluded that teachers’
knowledge, behavior and underlying values towards students and their abilities, known as
pedagogical identity, are formed and shaped by the educators’ prior experiences, teacher
preparation programs, and culture of the school. Therefore, to minimize stigmatization of
students with dyslexia, teacher education programs and school districts should provide
opportunities for educators to measure their attitudes and provide feedback about the
risks of stigmatization.
Summary
The literature review provided a foundation for additional investigation in the
field of the teachers’ perceptions about the use of technology to teach students with
dyslexia and the impact technology has on providing equal learning opportunities for
these students and non-dyslexic students. Based on the research mentioned previously,
the use of technology has been widely studied using different methods and students
(students with physical, emotional, and cognitive limitations); however, the perceptions
of teachers on the role of technology to teach students with dyslexia have not yet been
fully explored.
36
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The primary purpose of this quantitative study was to examine teachers’
perceptions of the use of technology in the classroom to teach students identified as
having dyslexia and to determine if factors such as teaching experience, experience with
technology were associated with teachers’ perspectives.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. Are there differences between teachers’ perceptions of academic benefits of the
use of technology by non-dyslexic students and students with dyslexia?
2. Are there differences between teachers’ perceptions of the use of Assistive
Technology by students with dyslexia based on training received and previous
experiences teaching these students?
3. What types of technology are teachers currently using with students with
dyslexia?
4. What are teachers’ perceptions of allowing students with dyslexia to utilize
technology in the classroom on a regular basis?
5. What are teachers’ perceptions of their own ability to implement technology to
teach students with dyslexia?
37
Participants
To ensure sufficient statistical power to answer the research questions proposed, a
power analysis was conducted in G*Power to determine the sample size. The following
parameters were used for the power analysis: The major test families were multiple
regression and factorial ANOVA, with two predictor variables per analysis, an alpha
level of .05, a power level of .80, and an effect size of .25 (medium effect). The minimum
sample size required with these parameters was 237 participants.
Recruitment
An application to conduct research was submitted to the Texas Woman’s
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Once this application was approved, an
application to conduct research was submitted to various independent school districts in
the larger metroplex area. Upon approval from districts administrations and /or school
districts’ institutional review boards, campus principals at elementary schools within
these districts were contacted via e-mail explaining the purpose of this study and
requesting permission to recruit teachers for participation.
Once the principals approved campus participation, the survey link was sent to
teachers via email. Each school district has a different protocol for contacting teachers
and guidelines for each district were followed. Most districts requested the email text to
be provided to the principals or a person in the administration office while others
approved for teacher to be contacted based on the information provided on the schools’
websites. The email provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the study as well as
the link to the online questionnaire with directions about completing the survey. In the
38
email, teachers received information about voluntary participation and the opportunity to
withdraw from the study at any time. In addition, participants were informed that data,
such as names or email addresses, would be kept private and that every effort was made
to ensure the protection and confidentiality of the participants identity. This recruitment
method resulted in data from 90 participants.
Additionally, participants were solicited via the participant recruitment site
Prolific (www.Prolific.ac). Prolific is a website for recruiting participants to be part of
research studies based on specific demographics set by the main researcher. The
demographics for eligible participants were limited by specific location (Texas) and
teaching grade. Participants who did not meet these criteria did not have access to the
survey. Qualified participants received a notification about the study directly from
Prolific with a link to the survey in Psychdata. This recruitment method resulted in data
from 147 participants. The information from three participants was not included in the
data analysis due to incomplete surveys.
Sample
The total sample for this study included 234 elementary classroom teachers who
teach one or more of the four content areas (language arts, mathematics, science and
social studies) in grades 2nd through 6th. Most of the respondents (87%) were female.
Years of teaching experience were reported as follows: 26% of the respondents had
between zero and five years of teaching experience, 23% had between 6 and 10 years of
experience, 29% had between 11 and 15 years of experience, and the remainder (31%)
had more than 15 years of teaching experience (see Table 1).
39
Table 1
Frequencies and Percentages of Years of Teaching Experience
Years of Teaching Experience n Percent
0 - 5 61 26.0 6 - 10 54 23.0 11 - 15 48 20.5 16 - 20 32 13.6 21 - 25 21 8.9 26 - 30 12 5.1 31+ 7 2.9 234 100
Most of the respondents (71%) were general education teachers, 15% were special
education teachers, 8% were ESL/bilingual teachers, 3% were reading specialists and 5%
were dyslexia teachers (see Table 2). Additionally, respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to
62 (M = 38.86, SD = 9.80) (see Table 3).
Table 2
Frequencies and Percentages of Current Teaching Position
Position n Percent
General Education 165 70.5
Special Education 35 15.0
ESL/Bilingual 1 6.0
Reading Specialist 8 3.4
Dyslexia Teacher 12 5.1
234 100
40
Table 3
Frequencies and Percentages of Educators’ Age (n=234)
Age n Percent
18 - 28 36 15.4
29 - 39 102 43.6
40 - 50 61 26.1
51 - 61 33 14.1
62 2 0.8
Instrumentation
Teacher Questionnaire
An online survey was administered to the participants identified as teachers of
students with dyslexia (see Appendix A). The questionnaire was developed by the
researcher based on several exiting surveys. One of the surveys was developed and used
by Pew Internet, the College Board, and the National Writing Project to identify effective
ways to teach teachers how to effectively teach writing in today’s digital environment.
Another survey was developed by the University of North Texas to study perceptions of
the use of information technology. Other surveys were developed to assist researchers in
the data collection process.
The purpose of this survey was to obtain demographic information and
information about teachers’ perceptions of the use of technology to teach these students.
The survey was a 55-item questionnaire that attempted to collect data in five different
categories: Participants’ characteristics, teachers’ perceptions of academic benefits of the
use of technology for all students and for students identified as having dyslexia, teachers’
41
willingness to allow students identified as having dyslexia to use ATs, and teachers’
perceptions about their own ability to use AT with students identified as having dyslexia.
The questionnaire included Likert-type scale questions, opened ended questions, and
selected response items.
Procedure
The survey was housed on PsychData.com, which is an internet-based research
tool that allows the secure collection of data. PsychData offers confidentiality of
participants’ answers as it is a username and password protected site, and only the
researcher and faculty supervisor had access to this information.
Through electronic recruitment, participants received the survey link via email.
As the participants clicked on the link to the survey, the first page displayed the informed
consent form (see Appendix D), and participants were required to click the “Continue”
button to accept the conditions and access the survey. Upon completion of the survey,
participants were given the option to request an executive summary of the study results
and to be entered into a drawing to win a $50 gift card by clicking on a link to another
survey where they could enter their name and mailing address (see Appendix E).
Participants recruited via Prolific completed the survey in the same manner, and
once the survey was completed, a security code was provided to the researcher to ensure
validity. These participants received a standard compensation amount (based on the
length of the survey) of $2.05 upon survey completion.
42
Summary
This chapter presented the methodology for a quantitative study on teachers’
perceptions of the use of technology in the classroom to teach students identified as
having dyslexia.. The data collection was completed after IRB approval and was
conducted via an online survey developed by the main researcher after reviewing several
existing surveys. The data collection process followed all the requirements and protocols
established by the school districts that participated in the study. Additional participants
were recruited through an online recruitment site.
43
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The primary purpose of this online quantitative study was to examine teachers’
perspectives on using technology in the classroom to teach students identified as having
dyslexia and to determine whether factors such as teaching experience and experience
with technology were associated with teachers’ perspectives. The study also assessed
teachers’ familiarity with assistive technology as an instructional tool and their
perspectives about its benefits and effectiveness as an academic accommodation for
students with dyslexia. The data was collected via an online survey from teachers who
teach in grades 2–6 at several public schools. The research questions were as follows:
1. Are there differences between teachers’ perception of academic benefits of the use
of technology by non-dyslexic students and students with dyslexia?
2. Are there differences between teacher’s perspectives of the use of AT by students
with dyslexia based on training received and previous experiences teaching these
students?
3. What types of technology are teachers currently using with students with
dyslexia?
4. What are teachers’ perceptions of allowing students with dyslexia to utilize
technology in the classroom on a regular basis?
5. What are teachers’ perceptions of their own ability to implement technology to
teach students with dyslexia?
44
Preliminary Analyses
Computation of Variable Scales
Scales were computed for the following variables by summing the items used to
measure each variable: Technology Training from the nine items in question 14 (training
on various technology resources) from the Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix A),
Perception of Benefits Non-Dyslexic from the five items on Question 16 (perceptions of
benefits of general technology for non-dyslexic students), Perception of Benefits
Dyslexic from the five items in Question 18 (perceptions of benefits of general
technology for students with dyslexia), AT Willingness from the six items in Question 19
(willingness to allow the use of AT in the classroom), AT Benefits from the seven items
on Question 20 (perception of benefits of AT) and AT Ability from the six of the seven
items in Question 21 (perception of own ability to use AT with students with dyslexia
(see Table 4).
Table 4
Scale Reliability
Scale n M SD Cronbach’s α
Technology Training 9 22.36 8.81 0.93
Perception of Benefits Non-Dyslexic 5 20.58 2.81 0.77
Perception of Benefits Dyslexic 5 21.09 2.80 0.84
AT Willingness 5 21.99 2.85 0.85
AT Benefits 7 28.73 3.78 0.88
AT Ability 6 19.84 4.24 0.77
45
Technology training. The Technology Training scale was computed by adding
the nine items from Question 14. Possible scores ranged from 9 to 45, with higher scores
indicating more training. Participants’ scores ranged from 9 to 45 (M = 22.36, SD =
8.81). The scale had excellent internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .93).
Perception of benefits Non-Dyslexic. This scale was computed by adding the
five items from Question 16. Possible scores ranged from 5 to 25, with higher scores
indicating perception of greater benefits. Participants’ scores ranged from 7 to 25 (M =
20.58, SD = 2.81). The scale had acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .77).
Perception of benefits Dyslexic. This scale was computed by adding the five
items from Question 18. Possible scores ranged from 5 to 25, with higher scores
indicating perception of greater benefits. Participants’ scores ranged from 14 to 25 (M =
21.09, SD = 2.80). The scale had good internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .84).
AT willingness. This scale was computed by adding the first five items from
Question 19. Possible scores ranged from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating greater
willingness. Participants’ scores ranged from 15 to 25 (M = 21.99, SD = 2.85). The scale
had good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .85).
AT benefits. This scale was computed by adding the seven items from Question
20. Possible scores ranged from 7 to 35, with higher scores indicating greater benefits.
Participants’ scores ranged from 17 to 35 (M = 28.73, SD = 3.78). The scale had good
internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .88).
AT ability. This scale was computed by adding the six items from Question 21.
Item 6 was reverse scored prior to adding it to the subscale. Possible scores ranged from
46
6 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater perceived ability. Participants’ scores
ranged from 9 to 30 (M = 19.84, SD = 4.24). The scale had acceptable internal reliability
(Cronbach’s α = .77).
Descriptive Statistics
Staff Development
Teachers reported that in the past school year they received an average of 2.31
hours (SD = 8.1, Range = 0 - 80) of staff development related to the needs of students
with dyslexia. In addition, they reported receiving an average of 4.84 hours (SD = 6.77,
Range = 0 - 40) of staff development related to the use of technology in the classroom.
Technology Expertise
When asked to describe their own ability with technology, 3% labeled themselves
as beginners, 51.7% as intermediate, and 45.3% as advanced or very advanced. In terms
of their ability with assistive technologies, 44.4% labeled themselves as beginners, 39%
as intermediate, and 17% as advanced or very advanced.
Dyslexia Knowledge
When asked to define dyslexia (in an open-ended format), 18.1% of teachers
provided a correct and complete definition, 72.5% provided a correct but incomplete
definition, and 9.4% provided an incorrect definition or gave no answer. Some examples
of the correct and complete definition, correct but incomplete definition, and incorrect
definition of dyslexia can be found in Table 5.
47
Table 5
Samples of Dyslexia Definitions Provided by Participants
Correct and Complete Definition Dyslexia is a reading disorder that makes reading, writing, and spelling more difficult not due to hearing or vision problems. Those with dyslexia have at least a normal IQ but have a deficit in ability when it comes to reading, writing, and spelling. They may use "coping mechanisms" such as predicting what makes sense that make diagnosing their disorder hard at a young age. Testing for dyslexia usually does not start to seven since certain things in reading and writing (ex. letter reversal) are age appropriate for beginning readers and writers. Dyslexia is a neurological problem in possibly three areas of the brain that involve letter identification, sound identification, sight words, word analysis. Correct but Incomplete Definition I know dyslexia is a neurological learning disability. Students who have dyslexia have difficulty reading and decoding words. Their fluency is labored. They have difficulty spelling. Learning disorder primarily in reading. Students can be high in math, comprehension, and academic areas not dependent on text. Incorrect Definition Dyslexia is common in children. In simple terms it is causes children difficulty in reading and also comprehending words and numbers. Word blindness cannot see the words.
Primary Analyses
Teachers’ Perceptions of Benefits of the Use of Technology by Non-Dyslexic
Students
Research Question 1 asked whether there were differences between teachers’
perceptions of academic benefits of the use of technology by non-dyslexic and students
with dyslexia. Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of the use of technology to teach
48
non-dyslexic students was lower (M = 20.59, SD = 2.81) than their perceptions of
academic benefits of the use of technology by students identified as having dyslexia
(M = 21.09, SD = 2.80). A paired samples t-test revealed that this difference in perception
was significant, t(233) = 3.71, p < .001.
Teachers’ Perceptions of AT Benefits Based on Training History and Experience
Teaching Students with Dyslexia
Research Question 2 asked whether teachers’ perceptions of the use of AT by
students with dyslexia differed based on their training history and their prior experience
teaching students with dyslexia. A multiple linear regression was computed to predict if
the number of training hours teachers received on the academic needs of students with
dyslexia (Teacher Questionnaire item 9), the number of training hours received on the use
of technology (Teacher Questionnaire item 10), and their previous experience teaching
students with dyslexia (Teacher Questionnaire item 7) were predictive of their
perceptions of the benefits of using AT. This model was not significant, F(3,230) = 2.04,
p = .10, R2 = 0.026.
Types of Technology Being Used in the Classroom
Research Question 3 asked what types of technology teachers were currently
using as associated with the instruction of students identified as having dyslexia. More
than 15 types of technology were selected by various participants. The most widely used
technologies were Internet access (70%), laptops (65%) and projectors/screens (61%),
whereas the devices with the lowest percent of use were electronic translators (5%),
electronic readers (14%) and smartphones (18%) (see Table 6).
49
Teachers’ Willingness to Allow Students with Dyslexia to Utilize Technology
Research Question 4 asked about the teachers’ perceptions of allowing students
identified as having dyslexia to utilize technology in the classroom. Descriptive statistics
indicated a high degree of willingness. On a scale of 5 to 25, the average score was 24.07
(SD = 3.00, Range = 17 - 30). To assess whether such willingness was influenced by the
number of training hours teachers received on the academic needs of students identified
as having dyslexia and the number of training hours received on the use of assistive
technology, a multiple linear regression was computed. The overall model was not
significant F(2,183) = 2.05, (p = .13), R2 = 0.022; however, training hours related to the
50
needs of students with dyslexia were predictive of willingness to allow AT use, b = .03,
t(185) = 2.01, p = .04, 95% CI [0.000, 0.050]. The more training received, the greater the
willingness.
To determine whether the experience of teaching students with dyslexia and the
teachers’ self-reported ability to use AT influenced their willingness to allow students to
utilize technology in the classroom on a regular basis, a 2 (experience: yes, no) x 3
(ability: beginner, intermediate, advanced/very advanced) ANOVA was conducted. The
analysis was not significant F(36,197) = 2.83, (p = .87), R2 = .342.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Own Ability to Implement Assistive Technology
Research Question 5 asked what teachers’ perceptions were of their own abilities
to implement technology to teach students with dyslexia. Descriptive statistics indicated
a high degree of agreement of statements to implement AT. On a scale of 7 to 35, the
mean score was 24.00 (SD = 4.15, Range = 13 - 35).
To assess whether teachers have had prior experience teaching students with
dyslexia (Teacher Questionnaire 7), the number of training hours received on the
academic needs of students with dyslexia (Teacher Questionnaire 9), and the number of
training hours received on the use of technology (Teacher Questionnaire 10) influenced
teachers’ perceptions of their own ability to implement the technology, a multiple linear
regression analysis was conducted. This model was significant, F(3,230) = 4.01 p = .01
R2 = .05. However, only the prior experience variable was individually significant, b =
.38, t(233) = 2.89, p = .004, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.427]. Teachers with prior experience
51
teaching students with dyslexia indicated greater ability to implement AT (M = 24.06,
SD = 4.13) compared to teachers without such experience (M = 22.63, SD = 4.12).
Summary
In this chapter, data analysis methods and study results were presented. The
findings of this study indicated that teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of the use of
technology to teach non-dyslexic students was lower than their perception of the benefits
when teaching students with dyslexia. It was also reported that the number of training
hours teachers received on the academic needs of students with dyslexia, number of hours
of training on the on the use of technology and previous experience teaching students
with dyslexia were not predictive of their perceptions of the benefits of using AT.
However, training hours related to the needs of students with dyslexia and prior
experience teaching these students were predictive of teachers’ willingness to allow the
use of AT. Finally, it was reported that the most widely used technologies were laptops
and projectors/screens, whereas the devices with the lowest percent of use were
electronic translators, electronic readers and smartphones.
52
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The first four chapters of this research study presented the rationale of the study,
the review of the literature, the research methodology, the statistical analyses, and
the findings of the research. Chapter V discusses the data collected and the findings in
detail, the limitations of the study, and the implications for future research. The primary
purpose of this research was to study the perceptions of teachers on the role of
technology in teaching students who have been diagnosed as dyslexic. This study
investigated the types of technology teachers were currently using in the classroom and
the teachers’ perceptions of the benefit of AT for students identified as dyslexic.
Part of this research was to investigate whether any differences existed between
teachers’ perceptions of academic benefits of the use of technology by non-dyslexic
and the use of technology by students with dyslexia. Results indicated that teachers
perceive technology to be more beneficial for students with dyslexia than for non-
dyslexic students. The use of technology to teach students with dyslexia is often
discussed as part of a student’s accommodation plans for instruction and has been widely
promoted at the state and national level. Providing the necessary tools to promote
academic advancement among students with dyslexia has become a priority in public
schools (Pucket & O’Bannon, 2012) starting in kindergarten and first grade rather than
waiting until students reach the end of second grade (Smith, 2016). The exploration of
the impact of teachers’ perspectives on the use of technology to teach students with
53
dyslexia could be further tested. The objective would be that the teachers’ perspective
could be a focus of an academic training program in which the outcomes would be
favorable for these students. Mixed-methods design studies could provide valuable
insights to the benefits of teachers’ beliefs when introducing technology for these
students. The overall conclusion is that teachers consider that technology presents more
benefits for students with dyslexia than for non-dyslexic students.
Research Question 2 tested some factors that could possibly affect the
implementation of AT in the classroom to teach students with dyslexia. The question
addressed whether teachers’ perceptions of the use of AT by students with dyslexia
differed based on their training history and their prior experience teaching students with
dyslexia. Results revealed that a statistical relationship did not exist between these
variables. It would appear that training did not impact teachers’ beliefs about the benefits
of AT for students with dyslexia. However, this finding could be because teachers in
general reported very high perceived benefit scores, resulting in a possible ceiling effect.
Future studies may benefit from probing this issue in an open-ended format rather than a
Likert-scale format.
Research Question 3 was used to evaluate which types of technology teachers
were using in relation to the instruction of students identified as having
dyslexia. Although worldwide statistics have reported that schools around the world are
progressively becoming better equipped with technological devices and online
connectivity (Carballo, 2012; Wood et al., 2005), this study found that the variety of
technology devices being used in the classroom was limited. Devices used most
54
frequently were laptops (65%) and computers (59%). However, devices proven to be the
most effective for students with dyslexia, such as electronic readers which have been
found to promote reading comprehension (Ortlieb, Sargent, & Moreland, 2014; Pisha &
O’Neill, 2003), were used only by 14% of the participating teachers. Electronic readers
and digital reading platforms have been reported to assist students in their reading
comprehension of digital texts (Ortlieb, 2014). Also, regardless of the popularity and
versatility of smartphones, only 18% of the respondents utilized these devices as
instructional tools. It is necessary for teachers to become familiar with the use of AT and
to understand that reading can be taught utilizing alternative methodologies. Struggling
readers exist in many classrooms. Therefore, teachers must be able to guide and assist all
students with reading support and interventions in order to enhance their academic
success. These students are part of the techno-generation, comfortable with using
technological aids as part of their everyday world, and thus the use of smartphones and
other technologies can be a natural part of their classroom experience (Ruffin, 2012).
Research Question 4 assessed teachers’ willingness to allow students with
dyslexia to utilize technology in the classroom on a regular basis, and whether such
willingness was associated with the number of training hours received on the academic
needs of these students and the number of training hours received on the use of
technology. Results indicated that technology training did not predict willingness to allow
AT use, but training on the needs of students with dyslexia did. The more training
teachers had received in that particular area, the more willing they were to allow students
to use AT on a regular basis.
55
Alexander-Passe (2006) suggested that students identified as having dyslexia
should be given special attention from teachers in an attempt to improve their low self-
esteem and enhance academic performance. The more familiar teachers are with the
academic needs of the students, the more likely they are to implement approaches that
meet these needs. Even though the diagnosis of dyslexia is complex and includes non-
formal and formal assessment conducted by trained personnel, these classroom teachers
did in general appear to be willing to implement individualized accommodations for each
student. However, given the low frequency of use presented previously, the degree of
interest and willingness did not appear to translate into actual implementation. It is
crucial for educators to understand that AT can support both remedial and compensatory
approaches for a student with dyslexia (Caraballo, 2012).
Additionally, it was concluded that teachers received only a few hours of training
on the needs of students with dyslexia (on average 2.41 hours per school year). In 2013,
the Texas Education Agency established a new requirement for teachers who teach
students with dyslexia. This requirement specifies that dyslexia training on new research
and practices must be provided for educators who teach students with dyslexia (Texas
Education Agency, 2014) However, specific numbers of hours have not been stated.
Thus, school districts may need to provide additional training on this topic in order to
prepare teachers with the knowledge necessary to adequately meet the needs of
these students. Even though teachers are familiar with the benefits students with dyslexia
obtain from technology, the implementation process is truncated by factors that are not
yet clear. Chikasanda et al. (2013) reported that even experienced teachers demonstrated
56
a limited knowledge of the nature of technology and technology education. Therefore,
school districts should provide professional development sessions that address new
perspectives on the nature of technology in education and explore technology issues.
Research Question 5 assessed teachers’ perceptions of their own abilities to
implement technology to teach students with dyslexia. The results indicated that teachers
who had prior experience teaching students with dyslexia reported an increased
perception of their own ability to implement ATs in the classroom. Results also indicated
that teachers’ perspectives of their own abilities varied depending on the type of
technology. That is, 45% of the participating teachers perceived themselves to be
“advanced” in terms of general technology implementation, while only 17% considered
themselves advanced in terms of AT implementation. Instead, 44% described their AT
ability to be at the beginning level. This finding reveals that teachers feel comfortable
utilizing technology for academic purposes with students in general, but there is a sense
of inadequacy in regards to technology as AT. Further research regarding teachers’
understanding of AT could provide important information about how to implement and
lead professional development trainings about the use of these technologies.
Limitations
Some of the limitations of this study included a possible bias within teachers’
self-reports due to social desirability (Caputo, 2017). This could include overreporting of
practices deemed beneficial for students (use of technology and willingness to implement
AT) and overestimation of own knowledge and ability. Future research should study
teachers’ perceptions, abilities, and practices using a methodology less restrictive or more
57
qualitative in nature. In addition, this study did not link teachers’ perceptions and
classroom practices to students’ academic outcomes, and this should be explored in
future research.
Directions for Future Research
Future research should examine the efficacy, accessibility and versatility of these
technologies in the classroom. The present study showed that educators believe that
technology brings value to students’ academic performance in their classrooms.
However, many are not using the newest technology with students with or without
dyslexia. This study did not specifically assess which types of technology the teachers
found beneficial but did not have access to (due to them not being made available by the
individual school or district). Future research should explore the reasons why teachers are
not implementing more technology in the classroom and whether it is due to school
related factors (lack of provision of technology tools) or teacher related factors
(knowledge, training, or skills).
Additional studies could further examine teachers’ hesitation to adopt AT.
Identification of the specific barriers that cause hesitation to adopt new technology into
the teaching process could provide an insight to the removal of these barriers. This
process could result in positive learning outcomes for students with dyslexia. Studies
related to isolating these variables could provide prioritization or combinations of
training methodologies to determine efficient and effective training sessions for student
improvements.
58
Further review and research as to the key barriers to implementation of ATs and
factors behind teachers’ indecisiveness to implement them could be isolated and
predicted to differentiate the variables that contribute to the lack of engagement by
teachers. Future research should also investigate the factors that influence teachers’
perception about their own ability to implement ATs in the classroom versus the
implementation of general technologies. In addition, studies could attempt to identify
methods currently being used with students identified with other learning disabilities and
apply those devices with students with dyslexia to investigate if there are additional
benefits. Finally, a study that focuses on the differences in perceptions between dyslexia
teachers and general education teachers about technology and on how dyslexia specialists
can support general education teachers in teaching students with dyslexia should be
completed.
It is recommended that school districts develop and implement required
professional development sessions that address the academic, social and emotional needs
of students identified with dyslexia. Sessions related to these topics could provide
teachers with valuable information about the characteristics of these students and provide
an opportunity to learn strategies to effectively reach the students. Additionally, teachers
of students with dyslexia would benefit from seeking opportunities to attend training
sessions that address the various needs of students with dyslexia, sessions related to the
implementation of AT in the classroom, and sessions about multisensory teaching
approaches. These sessions could broaden the teachers’ understanding of dyslexia and
how to reach these students.
59
Conclusion
In conclusion, teachers’ perceptions of the use of technology in general as well at
the use of AT are influenced by various factors. Teachers are well-informed about the
general benefits of technology, and they consider it to be more beneficial for students
with dyslexia. However, the implementation and use of AT in the classroom to teach
these students was reported to be limited to a few technology devices. Exploring the
implementation of newer technology and a wider selection of devices could be more
beneficial and practical for students. Providing students with dyslexia with the
opportunity to use devices that are easily adaptable to many different functions and
activities can create a greater sense of independence and academic self-efficacy for these
students.
The number of hours teachers spent attending training sessions that address the
needs of students with dyslexia was reported to be limited. Teacher training sessions are
key opportunities to expose teachers to new topics related to the characteristics and needs
of their students. In order to increase awareness about the characteristic of students with
dyslexia, effective teaching approaches, and the latest research in this field, it is
imperative for school districts to provide such opportunities as part of the staff
development plan. Dyslexia is a condition that has not been widely discussed among
general education teachers. For many years, dyslexia has been a topic handled and
addressed by dyslexia specialists in schools. Today, the role of the general education
teacher has changed in regards to students with dyslexia. Federal and State law now
60
require all teachers to be familiar with the condition as well and the remediation and
instruction process.
The use of technology in the classroom is a very common practice. Students have
the opportunity to use technology devices in multiple ways for academic purposes.
However, the use of the same devices as AT was reported to be less common among the
current sample. Teachers reported low confidence about the use and implementation of
AT. The implementation of AT should be addressed by providing opportunities for
teachers to see the versatility technology devices offer for students and the multiple uses
for all subject areas.
Research has reported technology use in the classroom by students with dyslexia
to be a very effective approach that provides multiple benefits for these students.
Therefore, the implementation of AT in the classroom is an initiative that should be
considered by teachers and school administrators as part of the remediation process for
students with dyslexia.
Summary
The findings of this study revealed that teachers are reportedly aware of the
general benefits of technology, and they perceived students with dyslexia to obtain more
benefits than non-dyslexic students. Furthermore, teachers’ awareness of the benefits of
technology to teach all students, technology training history and their own ability to
utilize technology in the classroom did not reflect implementation of technology in the
classroom to support students with dyslexia. However, teachers with previous experience
teaching students with dyslexia and training on the needs of these students reported more
61
confidence and familiarity with the implementation and use of technology in the
classroom to support students with dyslexia.
Several recommendations were made about future research in the field of dyslexia
and AT, as well as recommendation for school districts and educators in the areas of
professional development and teacher preparation.
62
REFERENCES
Alexander-Passe, N. (2006). How dyslexic teenagers cope: An investigation of self-
esteem, coping and depression. Dyslexia, 12(4), 256–275. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/dys.318
Alvidrez, J., & Weinstein, R. S. (1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 731–746.
http://dx.doi .org/ 10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.731
Al-Zaidiyeen, N. J., Mei, L. L., & Fook, F. S. (2010). Teachers' attitudes and levels of
technology use in classrooms: The case of Jordan schools. International
Education Studies, 3(2), 211-218. http://dx.doi .org/10.5539/ies.v3n2p211
Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology
through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153–160.
http://dx.doi .org/ 10.1598/RRQ.42.1.8
Bandura, A. (1976). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
http://dx.doi .org/ 10.1177/105960117700200317
Bandura, A. (1978). The self-system in reciprocal determinism. American
Psychologist, 33(4), 344–357. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.4.344
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0003-066x.33.4.344
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H.
63
Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Retrieved from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanEncy.html
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519. Retrieved
from: http://ezp.twu.edu/docview/200007426?accountid=7102
Beacham, N. (2002). Dyslexia-friendly computer-based learning materials. Access All
Areas: Disability, Technology and Learning, 73–77. http://dx.doi .org/
10.1080/02667360600673782
Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (2001, March). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s
predictions correct? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional
identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749–764. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(00)00023-8
Bergen, D. (2002). Technology in the classroom: Using technology in inclusive
classrooms. Childhood Education, 78(4), 251–252. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/00094056.2002.10522195
Boles, S. R. (2011). Using Technology in the classroom. Science Scope, 34(9), 39–43.
Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/50418/.
Bryant, B. R., & Seay, P. C. (1998). The technology-related assistance to individuals with
disabilities act: Relevance to individuals with learning disabilities and their
64
advocates. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 4–15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100102
British Dyslexia Association. (1998). The British dyslexia association handbook.
Bracknell, UK: British Dyslexia Association. Retrieved from
http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/
Burden, R., & Burdett, J. (2005). Factors associated with successful learning in pupils
with dyslexia: A motivational analysis. British Journal of Special Education,
32(2), 100-104. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.0952-3383.2005.00378.x
Caputo, A. (2017). Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence
from an online survey. Universitas Psychologica, 16(2), 1–13. http://dx.doi .org/
http://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-2.sdsw
Caraballo, G. (2012). The effect of the use assistive technology on english reading
comprehension of students with learning differences. Retrieved from
http://ezp.twu.edu/docview/1015621470? accountid=7102
Chan, W. Y., Lau, S., Nie, Y., Lim, S., & Hogan, D. (2008). Organizational and personal
predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and
identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 597–
630. http://dx.doi .org/10.3102/0002831208318259
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology
applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A
meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, (9), 88–113. http://dx.doi .org/
10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
65
Chikasanda, V. K. M., Otrel-Cass, K., Williams, J., & Jones, A. (2013). Enhancing
teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge and practices: A professional
development model for technology teachers in Malawi. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 597–622. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9206-8
Churchill, D., & Churchill, N. (2008). Educational affordances of PDAs: A study of a
teacher’s exploration of this technology. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1439–
1450. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.002
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational technology
research and development, 42(2), 21–29. http://dx.doi .org/10.1007/BF02299088
Conlon, T., & Simpson, M. (2003). Silicon Valley versus Silicon Glen: The impact of
computers upon teaching and learning: A comparative study. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 34(2), 137–150. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/1467-
8535.00316
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational researcher, 19(1), 3–
13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019001003
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology,
1980–2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3310410.0005.309
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies
in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American
66
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. http://dx.doi .org/
10.3102/00028312038004813
Duhon, B. G. (2010). An examination of teacher perceptions of instructional technology,
patterns of teacher and student use, and professional development. Retrieved
from http://ezp.twu.edu/docview/899807079?accountid=7102
Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105345129403000203
Edyburn, D. L., (2006). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on
evidence for using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning and
Leading with Technology, 34(1), 20–23. Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-andleading.aspx
Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Assistive technology and writing. Perspectives on Language and
Literacy, 39(4), 36–40. http://dx.doi .org/10.17161/fec.v32i9.6776
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Ertmer, P. A., Paul, A., Molly, L., Eva, R., & Denise, W. (1999). Examining teachers’
beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54–72. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/08886504.1999.10782269
67
Fälth, L., & Svensson, I. (2015). An app as ‘reading glasses’–A study of the interaction
between individual and assistive technology for students with a dyslexic profile.
International Journal of Teaching and Education, 3(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi .org/
10.20472/TE.2015.3.1.001
Fantuzzo, J., & McWayne, C. (2002). The relationship between peer-play interactions in
the family context and dimensions of school readiness for low-income preschool
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 79–87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.79
Forgrave, K. E. (2002). Assistive technology: Empowering students with learning
disabilities. The Clearing House, 75(3), 122–126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00098650209599250
Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and
beyond. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Retrieved from:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LU3lAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=
PP1&dq=Fullan+(1992)+&ots=WqF4egY0Uz&sig=n82ZyBPlUFttbnFgvUrcD-
ubae4#v=onepage&q=Fullan%20(1992)&f=false.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20–20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595
Glazzard, J. (2010). The impact of dyslexia on pupils' self-esteem. Support for
Learning, 25(2), 63–69. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01442.x
68
Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology
integration in the classroom. The Journal of Research in Business Education,
50(2), 63–76. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/2158244012440813
Goswami, U. (2008). Reading, dyslexia and the brain. Educational Research, 50(2), 135–
148. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/00131880802082625
Gwernan-Jones, R., & Burden, R. L. (2010). Are they just lazy? Student teachers'
attitudes about dyslexia. Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 16(1), 66–86.
http://dx.doi .org/10.1002/dys.393
Günther, J. (2007). Digital natives & digital immigrants. Paper presented at the 8th
International Conference on Virtual University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic.
Retrieved from http :// virtuni . eas . sk / rocnik /2007/ pdf / fid 001571. pdf
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hasselbring, T. S., & Bausch, M. E. (2005). Assistive technologies for reading.
Educational Leadership, 63(4), 72–75. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/98787/.
Hecker, L., and E. U. Engstrom. "Assistive technology and individuals with
dyslexia." Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills (2nd Edition)(Judith
R.) (2005).
Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., van den Bergh, L., & Voeten, M. (2010). Teacher
attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic
69
achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 43, 515–
529. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/0022219409355479
Humphrey, N. (2003). Facilitating a positive sense of self in pupils with dyslexia: The
role of teachers and peers. Support for Learning, 18(3), 130–136. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00295
International Dyslexia Association. (2010). Knowledge and practice standards for
teachers of reading. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from
https://dyslexiaida.org/knowledge-and-practices/
Jones, Sara. (2017). Technology in the Montessori classroom: Teachers’ beliefs and
technology Use. Journal of Montessori Research, 3(1), 16–29. http://dx.doi .org/
10.17161/jomr.v3i1.6458.
Jones, V., & Jo, J. H. (2004, December). Ubiquitous learning environment: An adaptive
teaching system using ubiquitous technology. In Beyond the comfort zone:
Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (Vol. 468, p. 474).
Knoblauch, B., and Sorenson, B. (1998). IDEA’s Definition of Disabilities. Arlington,
VA: The Council for Exceptional Children (ERIC EC Digest #E560). Retrieved
from http://ericdigests.org/199-4/ideas.htm.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education, 59(4), 1109-1121. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Kovelman, I., Norton, E. S., Christodoulou, J. A., Gaab, N., Lieberman, D. A.,
Triantafyllou, C., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2012). Brain basis of phonological awareness
70
for spoken language in children and its disruption in dyslexia. Cerebral Cortex,
22(4), 754-764. http://dx.doi .org/10.1093/cercor/bhr094
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
technology research and development, 42(2), 7–19. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/BF02299087
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based
classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 39(2), 157–181. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782478
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective
integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233. Retrieved from
http://ezp.twu.edu/docview/200075198?accountid=7102
Long, L., MacBlain, S., & MacBlain, M. (2007). Supporting students with dyslexia at the
secondary level: An emotional model of literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 51(2), 124–134. http://dx.doi .org/10.1598/JAAL.51.2.4
Maldonado, N., & Morgan, H. (2010). Technology in the classroom: Using handheld
wireless technologies in school: Advantageous or disadvantageous? Childhood
Education, 87(2), 139–142. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/00094056.2011.10521462
Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Social relationships and school readiness. Early
Education and Development, 17(1), 151–176. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_7
71
Morgan, T. (2011). Online classroom or community-in-the-making? Instructor
conceptualizations and teaching presence in international online contexts. Journal
of Distance Education (Online), 25(1), 1. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/54018/.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying
discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and
teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.
http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications
technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for
Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390000200096
Ness, D., & Lin, C. L. (2015). Technology in education. International Education: An
Encyclopedia of Contemporary Issues and Systems, 1–13. Retrieved from
https://www.westpoint.edu/cfe/Literature/Ness_15.pdf
Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading
fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities.
Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427–452. http://dx.doi .org/10.1146/annurev-
psych-120710-100431
O’Connell, T., Freed, G., & Rothberg, M. (2010). Using Apple technology to support
learning for students with sensory and learning disabilities. Apple in Education:
Teachers and Administrators. Retrieved from:
72
http://images.apple.com/education/docs/L419373AUS_L419373A_AppleTechDis
abilities.pdf
Office of Special Education Programs (2014). The dyslexia handbook. Retrieved from
http://tea.texas.gov/Curriculum_and_Instructional_Programs/Special_Student_Po
pulations/Dyslexia/.
Ortlieb, E., Sargent, S., & Moreland, M. (2014). Evaluating the efficacy of using a digital
reading environment to improve reading comprehension within a reading clinic.
Reading Psychology, 35(5), 397–421.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.683236
Paterson, D. (2007). Teachers' in-flight thinking in inclusive classrooms. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 427-435.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400050601
Pisha, B., & O'Neill, I., (2003). When they learn to read, can they read to learn?
Perspectives, 29(4), 14–18.
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a
worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163–178.
http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00045-8
Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning
and academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Assistive
Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7(1), 39–62. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/55611/.
73
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
http://dx.doi .org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Prensky, M. (2006). Don't bother me, Mom, I'm learning!: How computer and video
games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how you can help! St.
Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to
digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3), 1–11.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.17471/2499-4324/277
Prensky, M. (2013). Our brains extended. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 22–27.
Retrieved from http://consc.net/papers/extended.html.
Puckett, K., & O’Bannon, B. (2012). Technology applications for students with dyslexia.
Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, 199–222. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/38311/.
Pyle, R. P., Bates, M. P., Greif, J. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2005). School readiness needs of
Latino preschoolers: A focus on parents’ comfort with home-school collaboration.
The California School Psychologist, 10(1), 105–116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03340925
Rathore, S., Mangal, S., Agdi, P., Rathore, K.S., Nema, R.K., & Mahatma, O.P. (2010).
An overview on dyslexia and its treatment. Journal of Global Pharma
Technology, 2(4), 18–25. http://dx.doi .org/10.22146/bpsi.11539
Riva, G., Villani, D., Cipresso, P., & Gaggioli, A. (2016). Positive technology: The use of
technology for improving and sustaining personal change. In D. Villani, P.
74
Cipresso, A. Gaggioli, & G. Riva (Eds.), Integrating Technology in Positive
Psychology Practice (pp. 1–37). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://dx.doi
.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9986-1.ch001
Ruffin, T. M. (2012). Assistive technologies for reading. Reading Matrix: An
International Online Journal, 12(1). 1-4. Retrieves from
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2012/ruffin.pdf
Ryan, M. (1992). The social and emotional effects of dyslexia. The Education Digest, 57,
68–71. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01648.x
Scrimshaw, P. (2004). Enabling teachers to make successful use of ICT. Becta ICT
Research, 1, 1–45. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/1604
Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of
educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46(3), 21–28.
Retrieved from http://www.hadassah.org.il/media/2173055/sempel.pdf
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. D., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the
future of learning. In Phi Delta Kappan Retrieved from http://www.
academiccolab.org/resources/gappspaper1.pdf
Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K.,
Skudlarski, P., & Fletcher, J. M. (2004). Development of left occipitotemporal
systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-based
intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55(9), 926–933. http://dx.doi .org/
10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.12.019
75
Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students
labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(4),
462–480. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/0022146513503346
Singer, B. (2015). Extended stereotype threat: Parental concern that a child will confirm
a negative stereotype associated with dyslexia. (Unpublished Master Thesis).
Trinity College, Hartford, CT. Retrieved from
https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://search.ya
hoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1507&context=theses
Smith, L. (2016) President signs dyslexia bill into law. Retrieved from
https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/president-signs-dyslexia-bill-law
Stearns, S. C. (2012). Integration of technology into the classroom: Effects on reading
comprehension. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/248/
Terras, M. M., Thompson, L. C., & Minnis, H. (2009). Dyslexia and psycho-social
functioning: An exploratory study of the role of self-esteem and
understanding. Dyslexia, 15(4), 304–327. http://dx.doi .org/10.1002/dys.386
Texas Education Agency (2007). School readiness integration (SRI) models: A
descriptive and cost analysis study. Austin, TX: Edvance Research. Retrieved
from http://tea.texas.gov
Texas Education Agency (2014). Dyslexia Handbook. Retrieved from
http://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=25769814312
76
Temple, E., Deutsch, G. K., Poldrack, R. A., Miller, S. L., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M. M.,
& Gabrieli, J. D. (2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by
behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional MRI. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 100(5), 2860–2865. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1073/pnas.0030098100
Thomson, M. E., & Hartley, G. M. (1980). Self-concept in dyslexic children. Academic
Therapy. 16, 19–36. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/105345128001600103
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017).
Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. DOI:
10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest
of Education Statistics, 2014. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2014). Building
the legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home
Washburn, E. K., Binks-Cantrell, E. S., & Joshi, R. (2014). What do preservice teachers
from the USA and the UK know about dyslexia? Dyslexia, 20(1), 1–18.
http://dx.doi .org/ 10.1002/dys.1459
77
Williamson, D., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the
future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104–111. http://dx.doi .org/
10.1177/003172170508700205
Wollak, B. A., & Koppenhaver, D., A. (2011). Developing technology-supported,
evidence-based writing instruction for adolescents with significant writing
disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7, 1–23. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ961159.pdf
Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teachers’
perceptions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom.
Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 183–206. http://dx.doi .org/
10.1080/14636310500186214
78
APPENDIX A
Survey
79
Teacher Questionnaire Survey Questions
Part I: Participants’ Characteristics
Please check the most appropriate response for each item:
1. Gender Male Female 2. Age ____________ years 3. How many years of teaching experience do you have? ______________ years 4. What grade level do you currently teach? (Check all that apply) � 2 � 3 � 4 � 5 � 6 5. What subject(s) do you teach? (Check all that apply) � Math � English Language Arts and Reading (1) � Social Studies � Science � Foreign languages � Physical Education/Health � Speech � Fine Arts � Electives
6. What is your current position? (Check all that apply) � General Education Teacher � Special Education Teacher � ESL/Bilingual Teacher � Reading Specialist � Dyslexia Teacher
80
7. Have you ever taught students identified as students with dyslexia? � Yes � No 8. What is your understanding of dyslexia?
___________________________________
9. In the previous school year, how many hours of staff development did you receive related specifically to addressing the needs of students with dyslexia? _____________________________________________________________________ 10. In the past school year, how many hours of staff development did you receive related specifically to using technology as a learning/teaching tool? _____________________________________________________________________ 11. In general, how would you describe your own ability with technology? � Beginner � Intermediate � Advanced � Very Advanced
12. In your opinion, how can/does Assistive Technology support students with dyslexia in the classroom? (Please be specific) _____________________________________________________________________ 13. How would you describe your own ability to implement Assistive Technologies in the classroom? � Beginner � Intermediate � Advanced � Very Advanced 14. Technology Training History
Texas Education Code defines Assistive Technology as any device, piece of equipment, or product system that is utilized to expand, maintain, and/or improve the
functional capabilities of a child with a disability.
81
Haven’t
Been Trained
Moderately Trained
Somewhat Trained
Well Trained
Very Well
Trained Word processing software (text-to-voice, voice-to text…)
1 2 3 4 5
Instructional software
1 2 3 4 5
Internet and search engines
1 2 3 4 5
Evaluation of software and applications (apps)
1 2 3 4 5
Instructional apps for smart phones and tablets
1 2 3 4 5
Language based apps for smart phones and tablets (dictation, translation…)
1 2 3 4 5
Integration of apps for smart phones and tablets into daily lessons
1 2 3 4 5
Integration of technology in to the curriculum
1 2 3 4 5
Use of technology available in your classroom
1 2 3 4 5
82
Part II Perceptions of Academic Benefits for All Students
15. Check all the technology pieces your students currently have access to in your classroom for learning purposes:
� Laptop � Microphones � Document camera � Sound system � Printer
� Internet access � Digital camera � Tablet � Headphones � Smartphone
� Computer � Projector/screen
� Other________
16. Rate the following statements about your perception of the benefits of the use of technology by non-dyslexic students
Strongly Disagree Disagree No
opinion Agree
Strongly Agree
Having technology devices in the classroom enables students to do more personalized learning
1 2 3 4 5
The use of classroom technology helps prepare students for the work world
1 2 3 4 5
Classroom technology enhances student achievement
1 2 3 4 5
Students chose the use of technology devices over traditional tools
1 2 3 4 5
Students work more independently when they use technology devices in my classroom
1 2 3 4 5
83
Part III Perceptions of Academic Benefits For Students with Dyslexia
17. Check all the Assistive Technology pieces your students with dyslexia currently have access to in your classroom for learning purposes � Computer � Laptop � Microphones � Document camera � Sound system � Printer � Internet access � Headphones � Smart phone � Projector/screen � Electronic translators � Electronic readers � Digital camera � Tablets � Smart phone � Keyboards � E-Books
Other_______________
84
18. Rate the following statements about your perception of the benefits of the use of technology by students identified with dyslexia
Stron
gly Disag
ree
Disagree
No opinion Agree
Stron
gly Agree
Having technology devices in the classroom enables students to do more personalized learning
1 2 3 4 5
The use of classroom technology helps prepare students for the work world
1 2 3 4 5
Classroom technology enhances student achievement
1 2 3 4 5
Students chose the use of technology devices over traditional tools
1 2 3 4 5
Students work more independently when they use technology devices in my classroom
1 2 3 4 5
Part IV: Teachers’ Willingness to Allow Students with Dyslexia to Use Assistive Technologies
19. Respond to the following statements related to your willingness to allow students to use Assistive Technology in your classroom
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
No opinion Agree
Strongl
y Agree
I would allow students with dyslexia students with dyslexia to
1 2 3 4 5
Texas Education Code defines Assistive Technology as any device, piece of equipment, or product system that is utilized to expand, maintain, and/or
improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability.
85
use technology provided by the school as a learning tool in class
I would allow students with dyslexia to bring their personal technology devices into the classroom as a learning tool
1 2 3 4 5
I would allow students with dyslexia to use AT independently to complete assignments
1 2 3 4 5
I feel comfortable allowing students with dyslexia to use technology devices available to me in my classroom
1 2 3 4 5
All students should be allowed to use technology in a variety of ways to meet their own academic needs (take pictures, video tape, request online notes, use voice to text…)
1 2 3 4 5
Only students with dyslexia should be allowed to use technology in a variety of ways to meet their own academic needs (take pictures, video tape, request online notes, use voice to text…)
1 2 3 4 5
Teachers’ Beliefs About the Use of Assistive Technologies by Students with Dyslexia
20. Respond to the following statements related to your beliefs about the benefits of the use of AT in your classroom
Strong
ly Disagr
ee
Disagree
No opinio
n Agree
Strong
ly Agree
I believe that AT helps students with dyslexia students feel included and comfortable with peers
1 2 3 4 5
86
I believe that the use of AT helps students with dyslexia students learn the curriculum more efficiently
1 2 3 4 5
I believe that reading assistive software is an effective accommodation to use with students with dyslexia students
1 2 3 4 5
I believe that writing assistive software is an effective accommodation to use with students with dyslexia students
1 2 3 4 5
I believe that math assistive software is an effective accommodation to use with students with dyslexia students
1 2 3 4 5
I believe that E-Books are an effective accommodation to use with students with dyslexia students with dyslexia
1 2 3 4 5
I believe that multimedia communication is an effective accommodation to use with my students with dyslexia
1 2 3 4 5
Part V: Teachers’ Perception About Their Own Ability to Use Assistive Technologies with students with dyslexia
21. Rate the following statements about your perception of Assistive Technology as a teaching/learning tool
Strongl
y Disagr
ee
Disagree
No opinio
n Agree
Stron
gly Agre
e I feel I have enough knowledge about the benefits of the use of technology by students with dyslexia
1 2 3 4 5
87
I understand that technology use could be part of a student with dyslexia’s accommodations
1 2 3 4 5
I am familiar with the definition of AT
1 2 3 4 5
I feel comfortable with the use of AT as a teaching tool in class
1 2 3 4 5
As part of my technology hours of required staff development, each year I choose new trainings to learn about new technologies/AT
1 2 3 4 5
I feel my school district offers enough technology integration training
1 2 3 4 5
I believe I need more training in the use of technology as an accommodation for students with dyslexia
1 2 3 4 5
22. Is there anything you would like to add in regard to students with dyslexia?
88
APPENDIX B
E-mail to School Principals
89
Dear Principal,
My name is Maria F. Blackburn and I am a Doctoral candidate at Texas Woman’s
University. Currently, I am working on a doctoral dissertation entitled “Teachers’
Perceptions on the Use of Technology in the Classroom to Teach Students Diagnosed
with Dyslexia.” This research is being overseen by my faculty mentor, Dr. Brigitte
Vittrup. My research examines the teachers’ viewpoints on the use of technology in the
classroom to instruct students with dyslexia.
I am requesting your campus teachers’ participation in this research. This study
will involve an anonymous online survey that can be completed in 20 minutes. Responses
to this anonymous survey cannot be traced back to the participants and all information
collected will be housed in a secure data facility. No personally identifiable information
is collected unless the participant wishes to participate in the drawing for the incentive of
a $50 Visa card or the participant wishes to receive the result of the study. You may
access and review the survey by using the link provided:
https://www.psychdata.com/s.asp?SID=175856
Your campus participation in this research study is completely voluntary. If you
do choose for your campus to participate, please forward the link to the survey to the
teachers at your campus.
If you have any questions about the study, you can contact me directly at 972-
XXX-XXXX, or via e-mail at [email protected].
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Maria Blackburn, Doctoral candidate [email protected] 972-XXX-XXXX
90
APPENDIX C
E-mail to Teacher
91
Dear Teacher,
My name is Maria F. Blackburn and I am a Doctoral candidate at Texas Woman’s University. Currently, I am working on a doctoral dissertation entitled “Teachers’ Perceptions on the Use of Technology in the Classroom to Teach Students Diagnosed with Dyslexia.” My research will examine the teachers’ viewpoints on the use of technology in the classroom to instruct students.
This study will involve an anonymous online survey that can be completed in 20 minutes. Responses to this anonymous survey cannot be traced back to the participant and all information collected will be housed in a secure data facility. No personally identifiable information is collected unless you wish to participate in the drawing for the incentive of a $50 Visa card or the participant wishes to receive the result of the study. There is a potential risk of loss of confidentiality in all e-mail, downloading, and internet transactions. However, surveys will be downloaded onto a secure computer which is only accessible to the Principal Investigator.
I am requesting your valuable participation in this research. If you choose to participate, please click on the link provided or copy and paste it into to your browser: https://www.psychdata.com/s.asp?SID=175856 . Please remember that your participation in this research is completely voluntary and you might withdraw from it at any time.
If you have any questions about the study at any point in time, you can e-mail me at [email protected].
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Maria Blackburn, Doctoral candidate [email protected] 972-XXX-XXXX
92
APPENDIX D
Informed Consent Form
93
TEXAS WOMAN’S UNIVERSITY CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Title: Teachers’ Perceptions on the Use of Technology in the Classroom to Teach Students Diagnosed with Dyslexia.
Investigator: Maria Blackburn, M.Ed …………..……[email protected] 972-XXX-XX Advisor: Brigitte Vittrup, Ph.D …………………[email protected] 940-XXX-XX
Explanation and Purpose of the Research
The purpose of the study is to provide an understanding of teachers’ perspectives on the use of technology teach students who have been diagnosed with dyslexia. This study is a dissertation as partial fulfillment of a doctoral degree at Texas Woman’s University (TWU).
By completing this survey, you agree to participate in this research and to allow the Principal Investigator to use the results in conference presentations and/or research publications. However, information is collected anonymously; therefore, the information you provide cannot be linked to your name or personal information. Participation is voluntary.
Description of Procedures
You will be asked to spend approximately 15-20 minutes of your time to answer questions about your experience as a classroom teacher with students with dyslexia and your perspectives on the use of technology as a teaching tool.
Potential Risks
There are potential risks associated with this study, including:
• Emotional discomfort: as a participant, you are free to refuse to answer any questions you are not comfortable with. In addition, you are free to discontinue participation at any time.
• Loss of confidentiality: all records for this study will be kept strictly confidential and will be kept in a secure location. All electronic information will be coded and secured using a password protected file. Any information in any report published that would make it possible to identify you, will not be included.
• Perception of coercion from school administrators: your decision to participate or not in the study will not affect your relationship with the school and will not have
94
an impact on your job status. Please know that school and administrators are not affiliated with this study and do not have access to the data collected.
Please note that you are free to not answer any questions with which you feel uncomfortable, and you may discontinue participation at any time. You are not asked to give any personally identifying information, and all answers will be kept confidential. Your decision to participate or not will not in any way affect your existing or future relationship with Texas Woman’s University or the Principal Investigator.
In the event that you feel any emotional discomfort during or after the conclusion of the study, please use the link provided as a source for referral to find support: http://locator.apa.org/.
There is a potential risk of loss of confidentiality in all email, downloading, and internet transactions. However, surveys will be downloaded onto a secure computer which is only accessible to the Principal Investigator.
Participation and Benefits
Your involvement in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time. Participants have the opportunity to enter into a drawing for a $50 gift card as a benefit from participating in this study.
Questions Regarding the Study
Thank you in advance for completing this survey. Should you have any questions about this project, or the results of the survey, please contact the Principal Investigator: Maria Blackburn at 972-XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at [email protected], or the faculty advisor: Dr. Brigitte Vittrup, 940-XXX-XXXX, [email protected]. If you have questions about your rights as a participant in this research or the way this study has been conducted, you may contact the Texas Woman’s University Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at 940-898-3378 or via email at [email protected]. If you would like a copy of this consent form, please print this page for your own records.
The researcher will attempt to prevent any problems that may occur during this research. You should inform the researcher if inconveniences arise to receive support. However, TWU does not provide medical services or financial assistance for injuries that might occur as you participate in this research.
95
If you wish to participate in this study and are ready to proceed, please click the button below to begin the survey.
Confidentiality Statement
The records of this study will be kept strictly confidential. Research records will be kept in a secure location, and all electronic information will be coded and secured using a password protected file. The researcher will not include any information in any report published that would make it possible to identify you.
Your participation is highly appreciated!
96
APPENDIX E
Contact Information Form for Incentive Participation
97
Contact Information Form for Incentive Participation
Would you like to be entered into a drawing for a $50 gift card?
Yes No
Would you like to receive an executive summary of the study results upon
completion of the study?
Yes No
If you answered “yes” to either one of the questions above, please provide the
information requested below:
Name: ____________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
You can also request an executive summary of this Study by e-mailing the principal investigator at [email protected].