| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Status Quo of Using ICT in Teaching among Special Education Teachers in Amman, Jordan SchoolsMayada Al-Natour, Hatem Alkhamra, Khalid AjlouniJordanAbstractThis study aims at evaluating the status quo of using ICT among special education teachers in Amman- Jordan schools. The study describes the extent to which ICT has been made available to teachers and students, and obstacles that hinder their use. A questionnaire was developed and sent to 137 teachers who participated in the study. 97 questionnaires were returned, representing 70% of the total population. Results indicated that availability of tools and devices was limited. Educational programs available in resource rooms were Word Processor, PowerPoint, graphic related programs, and educational games. Difficulty in accessing the internet, lack of educational programs for students with special needs, and lack of educational devices were the obstacles encountered by special education teachers. On comparing use of ICT by special education teachers in public and private schools, private schools made significantly greater use. Results showed significant differences among special education teachers based on their educational qualifications. Teachers with Doctorate or Master degrees used ICT more often than teachers holding Bachelor degrees. Keywords: Using ICT, Teaching, Special Education Teachers, Schools, Resource rooms. Introduction and Theoretical BackgroundBy the end of the twentieth century, deep structural, technological, and scientific developments were impacting business, education, and the ways we live and learn. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) introduced computers and networks and dramatically changed communication, education, and access to knowledge. Changes included digitizing of information transmission, storage retrieval, processing, and management and introduction of the Personal Computer (PC), Internet (World-Wide-Web) and a simple user interface (browser). These developments transformed the whole world into a "small village" (Twalalbeh, 2001). As a result, information technology has become a prerequisite for education, business, and the society as a whole. The "small village" has become a reality in our daily contacts, through media and modern communication tools such as space nets, satellites, and information banks. The widespread use of computers and multimedia fostered these relations. Multimedia and PCs' have user interfaces to combine many digital systems. Digitization solves many difficulties in storing, transferring, and processing information (Zemylas & Vrasidas, 2005). The importance of information is not a matter of discussion and argument nowadays. The last few years witnessed two parallel revolutions in the field of information technology: the first represents the explosion of information that is easily accessible. The other is electronic communications through which all types of information are transferred securely and at very high speeds at local and international levels. Education has benefited because the technology is simple to use, ubiquitous, and relatively inexpensive. It facilitates rapid production and real-time distribution. It has the ability to rapidly transform and continuously renew the knowledge and skills on which education is built. Educational information should encompass the untracked developments that includeshuman perceptions and interests (Backard & Rice, 2003). CD-ROMs, communication networks, and others digital electronic technologies became teaching tools quite recently. These tools enable individual learners and teachers to obtain whatever information published worldwide, at any time and place, and at very high speed (Szabo & Hastting, 2000). UNESCO (2004) defines ICT as those aspects of scientific, technological and engineering knowledge, and administrative methods that are used to access and process information and its applications i.e., the interaction between computers and tools with human beings and their social, economic and cultural matters. Ilomarki (2001) defines ICT as an application of electronic technology such as PCs, satellites, internet, and CD-ROMs to produce, store, retrieve, and deliver digital information in an integrative process with communication nets. Mooij (2004) considers information technology as one part of education technology paying attention to the concept of ICT and employing it in the educational process. This, in turn, requires rethinking of the classroom environment and its components as well as providing opportunities for an ongoing learning process that should be based on cooperative values. In this context, teachers should be provided with the necessary training workshops so that they can acquire suitable competences to deal with their changing roles. Educators should be aware that ICT is not limited to teaching tools. It serves as a rich resource of information. Using ICT to improve education is not merely a technical issue that concerns itself with hardware and software - it is a group of interactive processes that work in an interdisciplinary social environment enabling interaction amongst peers, teachers, parents and school. This notion employs a wide variety of educational resources to provide individuals with rich learning experiences of consistent modern realities (Mooij, 2004). Convincing and preparing teachers to integrate ICT into their teaching has become a global mission in the last few decades. These concerns emerged because effective use of ICT in classrooms can significantly improve the overall teaching-learning environment, enrich students' learning experiences, foster participation, increase self-reliance and responsibility , and establish the foundations of long life learning (sustained learning) and personal development of individuals (Galanouli, Murphy, & Gardner, 2004). Using ICT is not limited to teachers and students. Administrative applications and learning management systems play an increasing role in management of learning. ICT also serves payroll, benefits, and management of human resources; communication between senior administration, teachers, and parents; schedules, evaluation, student records, educational counseling, and library management. The amount of services that ICT can introduce to the academic and administrative operations, particularly in light of the development in PCs' potential, internet and global communication nets, should not be underestimated (Ajlouni, 2005). Research emphasizes the importance of professional development for the successful use of ICT in classrooms. Baylor & Ritchie (2002), for instance, found that the support of professional development and the level of technology literacy of school leadership affected technology acceptance in classrooms and enabled teachers to master these technologies. ICT affected educational as a major contributor in building nations and as a motivating power for change. Each nations' success, even survival, is tied to their ability to gain high quality learning. We must adopt learning tools that are different from those used in the past that are consistent with modern technologies. Prosperity for present and future generations relies on good knowledge resources (Ajlouni, 2007). In general, learning tools support curricula to educate the next generation of students. ICT offers different methods of instruction and learning environments within which learning processes can grow; teachers who can, through their culture, intellect, teaching skills, and in-service and pre-service training, facilitate the learning process; and finally, students who are the core of the learning process and the citizens of the future. Learning is facilitated by information technology and tools such as computers, interactive multimedia, global information networks, powerful search engines, user friendly interfaces, and 24 X 7 access via the internet. These flexible learning opportunities are changing the way educational institutions communicate on-campus and via distance learning. (Ajlouni, 2005). Educating all students by today's standards and for tomorrow’s living most certainly includes the use of technology. Its relationship to providing essential support for students with disabilities in areas of self-care, education, employment, recreation, and community living are readily accepted. Access to technology can provide meaningful learning experiences to develop problem solving and higher order thinking skills and to function in the world beyond the classroom. The appropriate and successful integration of technology into learning environments has the potential to benefit all students. Examples of how technology use contributes to student academics, independence, employment/careers, and productivity have been discussed as “roles of technology for students with disabilities.” Specifically, technology assists students to: (a) maximize independence in academic and employment tasks; (b) participate in classroom discussion; (c) gain access to peers, mentors, and role models; (d) be self-advocate; (e) gain access to the full range of educational options; (f) participate in experiences not otherwise possible; (g) succeed in work-based learning experiences; (h) secure high levels of independent learning; (i) prepare for transitions to college and careers; (j) work side-by-side with peers; (k) master academic tasks that they cannot accomplish otherwise; (l) enter high-tech career fields; and (m) participate in community and recreational activities. The view of technology as playing a “role” for the student with disabilities includes a focus on the teacher’s integration of technology into the learning environment and on technology's impact on student outcomes and related benefits. Teachers are expected to be competent in technology skills and intervention strategies (Burgstahler, 2004). ICT and Students with Special NeedsUsing ICT in respect of those with special needs provides them with many benefits such as reducing or eliminating the negative impacts of their disability, supporting their learning and participation in classrooms, enhancing their professional and creative opportunities in addition to enriching curricula. Moreover, the use of ICT may enhance students' autonomy, self-esteem, self-confidence, and spirit of cooperation, particularly among those with special needs. For instance, using different programs by such students can motivate them to participate effectively in their learning and throughout their life. Further, using supportive technology reduces dependence of students with special needs on others and engages them in their societal activities especially when they find themselves in a position where they can directly get into contact and interact with those around them. Therefore, this category of students becomes more able to control their surrounding environment and to get rid of passive learning habits. This happens with students with special needs because they tend to use their mental and physical abilities that the technology requires (Ajlouni, 2005; Harstell, 2003; and Twalalbeh, 2001). Students with special needs also tend to avoid written work that leads them to make mistakes in grammar, spelling, and aesthetic handwriting. This causes boredom for them when they have to rewrite what they have already done. Therefore, Word Processing programs enable students to get rid of such problems and may compensate them for their disability through reducing their embarrassments in school or at the work place. Word Processing skills that students acquire may also help them increase their productivity and improve the quality of their works (Snow, 2002). Deaf students need an understandable language (spoken, sign, or a mixture of both), to communicate with other deaf or normal peers (Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). Sign language that is enhanced with articulation is used for deaf-deaf and deaf-normal communication. This language is credited in many computer programs that teach the common terms for the deaf and others who deal with them such as family members, teachers, peers and friends. These programs also seek removing barriers among all, so that the community can discover the hobbies, talents and innovations of the deaf. Such programs include the alphabet and the phrases needed for communication with the deaf vise versa regardless of the severity of disability. These ways of facilities protect the deaf from loneliness and isolation inside their community. The Computed Sign Dictionary could be the best example of these programs (Burgstahler, 2004). Individuals with visual impairment also used to live in isolation from others especially when they face language and communication problems especially that their own writing are only read by similar people and vise versa. Blind students rely on Braille language in writing and reading which can only be used by special machine for paper dotting. Therefore, feeling or touching is the main sense by which Braille enables them to learn and teach. However, such language may not per se compensate the blind and enable them to bridge the gap with normal people. That what called for many attempts to be addressed in this regard which depended on questioning: "why do we step towards the blind and why do we try to understand what they write"? Consequently, attempts to use modern technology took steps forward. For instance, a mechanism for designing suitable programs to attach Braille machine with PCs were created. Such procedures enable the blind to perceive letters correctly. Other developments in this respect included designing a Word Processor similar to Notepad and designing audio programs. These developments were done so that the visually impaired can extend their communication and interaction with a wider context than the one they live in and to be able to accommodate with modern technologies especially with computers which became the current common language (Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). This technology allows individuals that are visually impaired the opportunity to have complete control of documents such as opening new and existing files, saving them as they choose and then closing them. The blind can also select font style whether it is bold black or regular with or without underlines as well as using alignments types. All these steps may be done through audio file reminding of correct or non correct reception. Moreover, the blind can review and check his/her written works after finishing the use of short forms of Braille language. Many other orders can be used to facilitate the blind's tasks when using PCs (Ajlouni, 2005). Using technology or the so-called Assistive Technology may facilitate and meet many needs for normal students and for students with special needs. This can be done with the least efforts and costs. It is well notable nowadays that the positive impacts of technology on those with special needs help them develop their skills that are crucial for communication and adaptation within their communities. Assistive technology, universal design and universal design for learning shift the focus and consider the goals for learning, the learning materials, the instructional methods, and the learning assessments. Emergent approaches to improve student learning include (a) technology used as a tool to enhance productivity, engagement and performance; (b) technology used for research, organization, collaboration, and expression; (c) technology used to improve access, participation and progress; (d) technology used for discovery and to act upon accessible content to expose patterns and meaning; and (e) technology used to transform flexible content to preferred media. Resultant benefits include improved access, participation and progress in the general education curriculum (Hitchcock & Stahl, 2003). Assistive technology includes the use of software and hardware as a required consideration for special education students. Determining and evaluating software use and developmental appropriateness for the classroom is daunting, especially in light of the standards-based curricula states have adopted. Many teacher preparation programs do not include a component software evaluation that can be used with special education students for managing information and determining student needs. To be a technologically competent, special educators and teachers should have the skills to select developmentally appropriate software, to understand and delineate the related benefits of the software, and to align software skills with the curricula. Teachers must understand how software may provide opportunities for the student with disabilities to control environments, to stimulate imagination, to interact with others, and to use open-ended exploration to facilitate development of higher order skills (Weber & Forgan, 2002; Weber & Schoon, 2001). Considering what we already know about teacher technology use, and in spite of the fact that technology-using teachers are seeing the impact on their students, published studies support what we suspect, that teachers are not using technology (Roblyer, 2004). Yet, the integration of technology and quality teaching are said to be inseparable. Content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, as indicators of quality teaching, become readily evident within the process of technology integration that includes definition, planning, strategies, student management, and assessment (Pierson, 2001). However, technological knowledge must be modeled and emphasized in teacher education programs in order to ensure its understanding and its appropriate, successful application by the teacher in the K-12 classroom (Martin, 2004; Martin & Crawford, 2004; Martin & Crawford, 2005). Special educators are more likely to use technology competently if it has been embedded in coursework and field experiences (Martin, 2004). Based on indications reflecting a need for better training of teachers, the following issues related to technology use and special education teacher education programs have been identified: (a) university faculty factors such as a lack of modeling of technology in courses; (b) lack of technology implementation in activities and coursework; (c) a lack of expertise to develop complex technology mediated instruction; and (d) lack of technology integration in special education field experiences (Ludlow 2001). Technology integration is a tool that is known to contribute to the educational success of students with and without disabilities (Crawford & Martin, 2001; Roblyer, 2004). To meet the education needs of students with disabilities and to ensure their access, participation, progress, and assessment within the general education curriculum, teacher technological competence should be viewed as a critical teacher skill for addressing and meeting students' educational needs. Statement of the Problem and Questions of the StudyDespite the fact that the Ministry of Education in Jordan has been a pioneer in the region in incorporating ICT into all educational stages including resource rooms located within the jurisdictions of the ministry of Education and in funding this national initiation with substantial amounts of its local budget; Several attempts have been made to evaluate the ICT status in the general educational settings however neglecting one important aspect which is the use of ICT in special education settings. Therefore, the problem of this study evolved from the need for evaluating the status quo of using ICT in special education settings represented by resource rooms. This study aims at examining the extent to which the ICT have been applied on the ground; finding out the devices/ tools used and infrastructure of these resource rooms, the extent of teachers' use of available resources; and obstacles that hinder their use. More specifically, this study attempts to answer the following questions:
Population and Sample of the StudyThe population of this study consist of all (N=137) special education teachers in the public (N= 91) and private (N=46) resource rooms at Instrument of the StudyThis study aims at exploring the status quo of using ICT in teaching among special education teachers in resource rooms. In order to achieve the purpose of the study, the researchers developed a questionnaire that consisted of two sections: First section deals with the study purpose, objectives and a general outlook regarding its major parts. It also includes the demographic data and information such as educational qualification, gender of resource room teachers, and school type (public/ private) for research purposes. Second section includes four major parts: the first part comprises of tools and peripherals of computers, the second part includes the type of programs available for teaching, the third part consists of already used applications, and the fourth part covers the obstacles that hinder special education teachers' use of ICT in teaching. Instrument Developing ProceduresTo develop the instrument of the study, the following steps were taken:
Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument:Although the study instrument was constructed based on an extensive review of related litreture, the researchers consulted a group of (10) experts at the Data CollectionAfter developing the final version of the instrument and ensuring its validity and reliability, the researchers executed the following procedures:
Statistical AnalysisThe following statistical methods were used:
Results and DiscussionFirst - Results related to the first question "What are the most important devices and peripherals used by special education teachers in resource rooms?" To answer this question, the researchers computed the frequencies and percentages for the availability of tools and peripherals available in resource rooms. Table 1 show these frequencies and percentages. Table 1Frequencies and Percentages of Tools and Peripherals Available | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# | Type | Frequency | Percent |
1- | At least one computer in resource room. | 41 | 42.1 |
2- | Loud speakers | 40 | 41.5 |
3- | Ordinary printers | 39 | 39.2 |
4- | CD – Rom (Multimedia) | 36 | 37.1 |
5- | Microphone | 35 | 36.1 |
6- | (CD-R, | 19 | 19.5 |
7- | Data show | 17 | 17.5 |
8- | Devices for digital photos and videos | 16 | 16.5 |
9- | Colored printers | 11 | 11.3 |
10- | Scanner | 6 | 6.5 |
11- | Drawing palette | 6 | 6.2 |
12- | Terminal devices and Tools for disabled students (mentally, sensory & physically) | 4 | 4.1 |
13- | Laser printers | 2 | 2.1 |
Table 1 indicated that the availability of tools and peripherals in resource rooms were limited. Participants of the study indicated that the percentage of availability of tools and devices was minimal. It is found that (42.1%) of the resource rooms have computers, (41.5%) have loud speakers, (39.2%) have ordinary printers. These percentages are considered minimal to a certain extent. As for the availability of the rest of the equipments and peripherals in resource rooms, terminal devices and tools were the least available particularly those allotted for students with disabilities (mentally, sensory and physically) with only (2.1%).
Second- Results related to the second question:
"What are the most educational programs available for special education teachers in resource rooms?"
To answer this question, the researchers computed frequencies and percentages of the available types of educational programs in resource rooms that are used in teaching. Table 2 indicates these figures.
Table 2 indicated that most educational programs available at resource rooms were Word Processor, PowerPoint, drawing related programs, and educational games programs with percentages of (54.6%, 53.6%, 49.5%, 41.2%) respectively. These figures indicate that special education teachers use educational programs moderately. The researchers attribute this result to the availability of these programs that were already installed in computers purchased by the Ministry of Education and private schools. The availability of the rest of educational programs was minimal with percentages ranging between (6.2% -39.2%). This result were not surprising and consistent with Ajlouni (2005), Ilomarki (2001), Mooij (2004), and Diane (2000) who found that these programs were not included in purchasing contracts of computers since they were not important for teaching; however, buying such programs was left for school administration whenever the resource room teachers or computer trainers needed them.
# | Type of programs | Frequency | Percentage % |
1- | Word processor | 53 | 54.6 |
2- | PowerPoint | 52 | 53.6 |
3- | Programs related to drawing | 48 | 49.5 |
4- | Educational games programs | 40 | 41.2 |
5- | Excel Program | 38 | 39.2 |
6- | Games and entertainment based programs | 38 | 39.2 |
7- | Audio and video programs | 32 | 33.0 |
8- | Databases | 32 | 32.5 |
9- | Tracking students work programs (Management Instruction programs) | 29 | 29.9 |
10- | Internet browsers | 25 | 25.8 |
11- | Self-learning programs | 23 | 23.7 |
12- | Visual and audio Communication and interaction programs | 17 | 17.5 |
13- | Drill and Practice programs | 16 | 16.5 |
14- | Simulation programs | 16 | 16.5 |
15- | Statistical programs | 12 | 12.4 |
16- | Individual teaching plans programs | 12 | 12.0 |
17- | Electronic mail | 11 | 11.3 |
18- | Electronic encyclopedias | 9 | 9.3 |
19- | Music authoring programs | 7 | 7.5 |
20- | Programming languages | 6 | 6.2 |
21- | Administration programs (Testing and tracking students progress) | 6 | 6.2 |
Another factor that may interpret the lack of these programs in resource rooms could be attributed to teachers' perceptions and priorities of the important programs used in teaching. Thus, teachers did not see these programs as an important component in teaching students with special needs, therefore, affecting their demand to purchase such programs.
Third - Results related to the third question:
"What ICT applications used by special education teachers?"
To answer this question, the researchers computed the mean scores, standard deviations, and ratio importance for the extent to which special education teachers of resource rooms use ICT. Table 3 shows these figures.
# | Item | Mean Score | Standard Deviation | Ratio % |
The use of ICT in resource rooms | ||||
1- | I carefully provide good educational programs from different resources. | 2.86 | 1.29 | 57.18 |
2- | I use computers in preparing and planning for exams. | 2.85 | 1.38 | 56.94 |
3- | I use computers in preparing lessons and doing routine jobs. | 2.78 | 1.24 | 55.56 |
4- | I allocate time for pre-preparation of my lessons using computers. | 2.75 | 1.22 | 54.93 |
5- | I use the educational game programs with students with special needs (i.e., those programs that aim at creating educational climate where academic achievement and entertainment are combined to generate an exciting educational atmosphere). | 2.62 | 1.37 | 52.33 |
6- | I use drill and practice educational programs associated with various skills such as (solving math problems, vocabulary and spelling…etc) | 2.60 | 1.35 | 52.05 |
7- | I use computers and internet resources to retrieve educational materials and articles related education students with special needs | 2.58 | 1.29 | 51.67 |
8- | I accompany Students with special needs to the computer lab so that they can learn with the support of computers. | 2.56 | 1.45 | 51.11 |
9- | I carefully provide and prepare all needed materials associated with the computer lab (i.e. providing paper for printing and CDs for storing purposes). | 2.30 | 1.34 | 46.03 |
10- | I use interactive CDs in to assist students with their self-learning | 2.29 | 1.27 | 45.75 |
11- | I use multimedia programs (video, audio, & animation) in some lessons. | 2.22 | 1.35 | 44.44 |
12- | I use computers to analyze test results of students' to track their progress and achievement of educational objectives. | 2.00 | 1.17 | 40.00 |
13- | I use the e-mail for educational purposes. | 1.96 | 1.15 | 39.17 |
14- | I help students with special needs to use chatting programs to encourage dialogue between students and others. | 1.86 | 1.05 | 37.26 |
15- | I use computers with students with special needs to solve math problems. | 1.85 | 0.73 | 36.99 |
16- | I use computers in teaching various subjects in the resource room. | 1.83 | 0.66 | 36.53 |
17- | I use self-learning programs with students with special needs where computer take the role of the teacher in explaining information, recording learners' responses and evaluating his/her learning outcomes. | 1.78 | 1.02 | 35.56 |
18- | I use data show to display the educational material. | 1.74 | 1.04 | 34.72 |
19- | I request students with special needs to use computers in various educational tasks. | 1.62 | 0.81 | 32.33 |
20- | I use internet resources and related sites as means for supporting classroom presentations of certain topics to explain lessons for students with special needs. | 1.46 | 0.73 | 29.30 |
21- | I attend my class early to ensure successful access to internet. | 1.46 | 0.60 | 29.12 |
22- | I ask students with special needs to write reports based on using information from internet. | 1.40 | 0.83 | 28.06 |
23- | I use group discussion techniques (forums) to conduct educational dialogues related to study materials. | 1.11 | 0.35 | 22.16 |
I use the following computer application programs: | ||||
24- | Windows | 3.17 | 1.46 | 63.33 |
25- | Word processor | 3.01 | 1.54 | 60.28 |
26- | Excel | 2.29 | 1.28 | 45.88 |
27- | PowerPoint | 1.88 | 1.10 | 37.61 |
28- | Access | 1.36 | .483 | 27.20 |
I use internet in the resource room for the following purposes: | ||||
29- | I use e-library in teaching students with special needs. | 2.75 | 1.22 | 54.93 |
30- | Getting educational programs. | 2.10 | 1.39 | 42.00 |
31- | Visiting sites for information research. | 1.94 | 1.33 | 38.86 |
32- | Reading papers and magazines. | 1.46 | 0.60 | 29.12 |
33- | Communicating through e-mail with students with special needs. | 1.36 | 0.48 | 27.20 |
34- | Teaching students with special needs. | 1.32 | 0.57 | 26.40 |
Table 3 shows that the first eight items had ratio percentages above 50 percent (means above 2.5), this indicates that special education teachers used moderately ICT to pre-prepare and prepare for lessons and instruction, exams, using educational programs and games.
The remaining items of this part had low percentages ranging from 22.9% to 46.03% which reveals low percentage of using ICT by special education teachers. The lowest item that comes in order is" I use group discussion techniques (forums) to conduct educational dialogues related to study materials." The low use of group discussion techniques can be justified; the researchers believe that such applications are viewed as recent technologies that need time to be actively used in the teaching setting. Moreover, such applications may also require special education teachers to master design skills, post electronic interactions, ability to publish on web, and provide sufficient time for preparing these discussions, these skills are not usually mastered by special education teachers.
As for teachers' use of computer programs and applications in resource rooms, results in Table 3 indicate Windows operating system is mostly used with (63.33%) followed by Word processor and Excel, with percentages of (60.28%, 45.88% respectively), whereas PowerPoint and Access had the lowest percentages with (37.61 and 27.20 respectively). The ratio percentage for using MS-Office is almost consistent with many previous research such as Edwina, 2003; Ilomarki, 2001 and Nino, 2003.
This consistency reveals that MS-Office programs (Word processor, PowerPoint, Excel, and Access) are available to the participants of this study to a great extent. This also indicates that participants use these programs because of their easy accessibility and familiarity; moreover, they do not require advanced levels of mastering skills.
Researchers attribute teachers' mastery of these programs and applications to the continuing training provided by the Ministry of Education such as ICDL and INTEL training courses.
Uses of internet were considered minimal regardless of its purpose. According to ratio percentages available in table 3, all items had low ratio percentages (less than 50%) with the exception of item 29 related to the use of e-library in teaching students with special needs.
The researchers attribute these findings to the limited access to internet at resource rooms, in addition, to the huge work load required by special education teachers which make it almost impossible for them to allocate time to use the internet. In general, results indicated that uses of ICT were considered minimum among special education teachers which was consistent with the findings of Ajlouni (2005) and Mooij (2004).
Fourth- Results Related to the fourth Question
"What are the obstacles that hinder special education teachers from using ICT in teaching students with special needs?"
To answer this question, the mean scores, standard deviations and ratio importance of obstacles that hinder the special education teachers from using ICT in teaching students with special needs was computed. Table 4 shows these figures.
No. | Difficulties | Mean | Standard deviation | Ratio |
1 | Lack of Internet access. | 3.39 | 0.69 | 84.9 |
2 | Lack of educational programs for students with special needs. | 3.37 | 0.75 | 84.2 |
3 | Lack of educational devices. | 3.32 | 0.68 | 82.9 |
4 | Insufficient terminal units and peripherals (printer, scanner, etc.) | 3.27 | 0.93 | 81.8 |
5 | Lack of information about the existence of suitable devices and programs for teaching. | 3.21 | 0.91 | 80.1 |
6 | Lack of sufficient reinforcement for using ICT | 3.20 | 0.92 | 80.1 |
7 | Unavailability of suitable training workshops for computer use. | 3.19 | 0.87 | 79.7 |
8 | The quality of training workshops offered to special education teachers are insufficient | 3.08 | 0.79 | 77.0 |
9 | Lack of administrative support. | 3.05 | 0.88 | 76.4 |
10 | Lack of technical support (maintenance). | 3.06 | 0.85 | 76.4 |
11 | Inappropriateness of physical environment for using ICT. | 2.99 | 0.91 | 74.7 |
12 | Enormous workload of special education teachers | 2.92 | 0.83 | 72.9 |
13 | Lack of allotted time for the use of ICT | 2.89 | 0.84 | 72.3 |
14 | The unavailability of up-to-date technology. | 2.79 | 0.97 | 69.9 |
15 | Weakness communication and electrical power infrastructure. | 2.77 | 1.01 | 69.3 |
16 | High teacher- student ratio in resource rooms | 2.70 | 1.01 | 67.6 |
17 | Lack of students' motivation to learn through technology. | 2.69 | 1.03 | 67.4 |
18 | Lack of computer labs. | 2.69 | 0.91 | 67.2 |
19 | Lack of updated versions of programs used | 2.59 | 0.97 | 64.9 |
20 | Lack of previous experience in using computers. | 2.54 | 1.05 | 63.5 |
21 | Fear from using modern technological applications in teaching. | 2.26 | 1.01 | 56.4 |
Table 4 describes obstacles that encountered special education teachers from using ICT in teaching students with special needs; half of the items presented in table 4 had high ratio percentages indicating major obstacles in using ICT among special education teachers. The other half of the items was rated as moderate obstacles by the participants of the study. Although similar results were obtained from prior research regarding regular education teachers in Jordan (Ajlouni 2005 and Ajlouni 2007) it is obvious that special education teachers encounter even more obstacles in using ICT, this can be explained by the level of interest by the ministry of education in general education versus special education. It seems that the priority of the ministry of education in terms of providing and fostering the use of ICT is focused towards the general population of schools, which implied that administrative personnel believe that regular students can use and benefit more from ICT than students with special needs.
Unfortunately, we can assume that attitudes toward special education are still viewed as of lower status in Jordan than the general education. Therefore, funding, training and facilitations are mostly provided for general education teachers.
Fifth- Results related to the fifth question:
"Are there statistically significant differences (P<0.05) in the mean scores of special education teachers' use of ICT in teaching students with special needs that can be attributed to school type (public vs. private)?"
To answer this question, T-test was used to compute the differences among school teachers (public and private) on the total degree of using ICT. Table 5 shows these results.
School | Mean score | Standard deviation | t-test value | Significance level |
Public | 2.014 | 0.77 | 2.231 | 0.02* |
Private | 2.365 | 0.73 |
*P<0.05 statistically significant
Table 5 indicates that there are significant differences at (P<0.05) due to the school variable (public or private) where the t-test value is found to be (2.231). This indicates that the degree of using ICT among special education teachers in private schools (µ=2.365) exceeds the degree of using ICT among special education teachers in public schools (µ=2.014). The researchers believe that private schools provide better computer devices for their teachers compared to public schools which, in turn, reflects on teachers' performance and, consequently, contributes to these differences between both groups (public and private) regarding the use of ICT.
Furthermore, we believe that schools in the private sector are highly competitive in
Sixth- Results related to the sixth question: "Are there statistically significant differences (P<0.05) in the mean scores of special education teachers' use of ICT in teaching students with special needs that can be attributed to their educational qualification?"
To answer this question, mean scores for each educational qualification level of special education teachers (Doctorate or Master 2.734, Bachelor 1.958, Diploma 1.565) were computed, these mean scores indicate that there were surface differences between the educational qualification levels of special education teachers. In order to find out if these differences were significant, One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was computed between the educational qualification levels of special education teachers (Doctorate or Master N = 17, Bachelor N= 36, Diploma N= 22) on the total degree of their use of ICT. Table 6 shows the results of ANOVA related to this question.
Source of Variance | Sum of Squares | df | Mean of Sum | F-value | Sig. |
Between groups | 13.337 | 2 | 6.669 | 15.662 | 0.000* |
Within groups | 30.655 | 72 | 0.426 | ||
Total | 43.992 | 74 |
*P<0.05 statistically significant
One way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was computed between the educational qualification levels of special education teachers (Doctorate or Master N = 17, Bachelor N= 36, Diploma N= 22) on the total degree of their use of ICT. Results reveled that there were significant statistical differences at (P<0.05) that can be attributed to the educational qualification levels of special education teachers (F=15.662).
To find out the sources of these differences, Tukey test for post comparisons was computed. Results indicate that these differences are between the first level (Doctorate or Master µ=2.734) and the second level (Bachelor µ=1.958) in favor of the first one, whereas there were no differences between the second level (Bachelor µ=1.958) and the third level (Diploma µ=1.565).
These results are considered logical because teachers who hold higher educational qualifications have more ICT based courses within their graduate program. Thus, it is expected that teachers with higher qualifications use ICT resources (i.e. searching for articles and resources, the use of internet, typing, statistical analysis, PowerPoint presentations...etc) in their course of study more often than those with lower qualifications.
Results of this article indicated various limitations in terms of the availability of ICT tools and programs, limited usage of ICT among special education teachers, and great obstacles that holds back special education teachers from using ICT in teaching students with special needs. In light of these findings, we strongly recommend that the Ministry of Education in
Ajlouni, K. (2005). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Jordanian Public Schools. Paper presented at The Fourth International Internet Education Conference ICT-Learn, September 6 - 8, 2005, Cairo, Egypt.
Ajlouni, K. (2007). ICT Staff Development in Jordanian Secondary Schools. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(11), 23-36.
Baylor, A., & Ritche, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology –using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395-414.
Burgstahler, S. (2004). The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. Available at: http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/publications/txt/role_of_technology.txt
Crawford, C. & Martin, S. (2001). The integration of assistive and adaptive technologies into the special education classroom. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education 2001(1), 2631-2633. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Galanouli, D., Murphy, C. & Gardner, J.(2004). Teacher perception of the effectiveness of ICT- competence training. Computers & Education. 43(1), 63-79.
Hartsell, K. (2003). Considering assistive technology for students with disabilities. Available at: http://www.gpat/org
Hasselbring, T; Glaser, C. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. Children and Computer Technology. 10(2), 102-122.
Hitchcock, C. & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 45-52.
Ilomarki, L. (2001). Teachers’ information and communication technology (ICT) skills and practices of using ICT. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 181 – 197.
Martin, S. & Crawford, C. (2004). Preserves educators and the integration of technology to meet state and national standards. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004(1), 4938-4941. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Martin, S. & Crawford, C. (2005). Supportive learning environments for students with diverse needs and technology use: Discussion of case studies and implications for teacher training. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005(1),3931-3936. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Martin, S. (2004). A sampling of activities used in special education teacher preparation coursework: Meeting the standards. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004(1), 4930-4935. Norfolk, VA: AACE..
Mooij, T.(2004). Optimizing ICT effectiveness in instruction and learning: multilevel transformation theory and a pilot project in secondary school. Computers & Education, 42 (2), 25- 44.
Pelgrum, W., Anderson R. (2002, 2nd revised edition) (Eds) ICT and the Emerging Paradigm for Life-Long Learning. Amsterdam: IEA.
Pierson, M. A. (2001). Technology integration practices as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.
Pilgrim, M.(2001).An Investigation into Instructional Communication Technology and the ISSUE of WebCt Faculty Support. Retrieved June/15/2007, from http://www.Trentu.ca/mpilgrim/webCT–Spupport.
Roblyer, M. (2004). If technology is the answer, what’s the question? Research to help make the case for why we use technology in teaching. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education 2004(1), 27-38. Norfolk, VA: AACE
Snow, J. (2002). How technology can help students wit special needs complete objectives outlined in their individualized support services plan: A review of the Literature. Available at: http://www.UCS.mun.ca/~f66mhp/module_two.html
Szabo, A. & Hastings, N.(2000). Using ICT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the black- board with power point? Computers Education and Instructional Journal, 35(3), 175-187.
Twalalbeh, M. (2001). The policy and management of information technology in Jordanian schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 133-140.
UNESCO. (2004). Training Workshop on the Development of Literacy & Non-formal Education through Information Communication Technology (Workshop Report (26–30) Jan. WindHoek, Namibia). Retrieved From: http://portal.unesco.org/education
Weber, R. & Forgan, J. (2002). Challenging decisions: Software selection and IEP process. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002(1), 2276-2280. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Weber, R. & Schoon, P. (2001). Special educators’ technology literacy: Identifying the void. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2001(1), 2641-2646. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
About the Authors
Dr. Mayada Al-Natour is an Assistant Professor in Special Education with emphasis on Learning disabilities at the University of Jordan in Amman, Jordan.
Email: mnatour@ju.edu.jo
Dr. Hatem Alkhamra is an Assistant Professor in Special Education with emphasis on Technology in Special Education and Vocational Rehabilitation at the University of Jordan in Amman, Jordan.
Email: h.alkhamra@ju.edu.jo
Dr. Khalid Al-Ajlouni is an Associate Professor in Educational Technology at the University of Jordan and Staff-Tutor at the Arab Open University in Amman, Jordan.